FOR MAN AND COUNTRY

Atheist Chaplains in the US Army?

Valeria R. Van Dress, Major, Chaplain

US Army Command and General Staff College Press

US Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Leavenworth, KS
Cover image courtesy of Beverly Kaiser. Created for the author and used by 

permission.

The Chaplain Corps’ official motto is “Pro Deo Et Patria” (For God and Country). The motto on this cover, “No Deo At Patria?” is translated as “No God, Yet 

Country?”
FOR MAN AND COUNTRY

Atheist Chaplains in the US Army?

Valeria R. Van Dress, Major, Chaplain

A CGSC Press Book

Published by The Army Press
iv

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

 Names: Van Dress, Valeria R., author. | Combat Studies Institute (U.S.), 

 issuing body.

 Title: For man and country : atheist chaplains in the US Army? / by Valeria 

 R. Van Dress.

 Other titles: Atheist chaplains in the US Army

 Description: Fort Leavenworth, Kansas : Combat Studies Institute, US 

Army Command and General Staff College Press, 2016. | Originally presented as the author’s thesis (Master of Military Art and Science)--US 

Army Command and General Staff College, 2014. | Includes bibliographical references.

 Identifiers: LCCN 2016034666| ISBN 9781940804293 (paperback) | 

ISBN 1940804299 (paperback)

 Subjects: LCSH: United States. Army. Chaplain Corps--History. | United 

 States. Army--Chaplains. | Military chaplains--Humanism. | Humanism. 

| Death of God theology. | Secular humanism. | Religious pluralism--United States. | Military chaplains--United States--History.

 Classification: LCC UH23 .V36 2016 | DDC 355.3/470973--dc23 | SUDOC D110.2:CH 34

 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016034666

2016

Editor

Jennifer B. Fike

US Army Command and General Staff College 

Press publications cover a wide variety of military 

topics. The views expressed in this publication are 

those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of 

the Department of the Army or the Department of 

Defense. 

The seal of the US Army Command and General 

Staff College authenticates this document as an official publication of 

the US Army Command and General Staff College Press. It is prohibited 

to use this official seal on any republication without the express written 

permission of the US Army Command and General Staff College Press.
v

Acknowledgments

First I want to thank God for giving me the motivation, strength, perseverance, and reassurance that I could tackle such a topic. With God all 

things truly are possible. I would like to thank my late Mother and Father for always supporting me and encouraging me to grow spiritually and 

academically. I would not be serving as a chaplain in the United States 

Army today without their support. My husband Eric has been traveling 

around the world with me as a support and anchor, and while I worked on 

this research, he not only played several rounds of golf solo, but he also 

spent hours reading my work while offering his invaluable editing advice. 

I also want to thank my brother Mark as my unbiased non-theistic sounding board. God has blessed me with an incredible family.

Next I want to thank my Master of Military Art and Science thesis 

committee, under which this project was initiated: I am grateful to my 

chair Chaplain (LTC) Sean Wead for regular milestones of encouragement 

and constructive criticism to tackle the difficult aspects of this topic. Dr. 

Prisco Hernández was not only a committee reader, but also a Christian 

humanist who challenged me to dig deeper into my topic. I am grateful for 

his guidance that caused me to think critically about my methodology and 

content. I am thankful to Chaplain (LTC) Richard Garvey as my reader, 

who quickly saw my bias and challenged my assumptions. He also provided much needed comic relief. Jason Torpy was not an official committee 

member, but read my paper – not only to ensure an accurate representation 

of the Humanist viewpoint – but also to offer academic advice on mechanics and structure. I am grateful for the time and effort he expended in 

support of this research.

Obviously, this research would not have been possible without the 

assistance of the twelve interview participants: Chaplain (COL) Ronald 

Thomas, Chaplain (COL) John Read, Chaplain (LTC) Doyle Coffman, 

Chaplain (MAJ) Seth George, Chaplain (CPT) Jonathan Fisher, Chaplain 

(CPT) Thomas Dyer III, Jason Torpy, Jason Heap, Chaplain Greg Epstein, 

Tom Flynn, MAJ Ray Bradley, and Chaplain (Lt. Col) Erwin Kamp. These 

men took the time to respond to my interview questions and allowed me to 

glean valuable insights from their experiences, suggestions, and depth of 

knowledge. Some of them spent hours with me discussing the issues and 

poring into my research. Thank you gentlemen! 

Most recently I want to thank Chaplain (COL) Barb Sherer, Combined 

Arms Center Command Chaplain, for writing the Foreword for this work. 
vi

CH Sherer has also been a mentor and model of leadership and strategic 

thinking for me personally and for many in the Chaplain Corps. Her Strategy Research Project for the War College also provided inspiration for me 

as I worked on the original thesis.

Finally, I wish to thank Beverly Kaiser for the concept and then designing the beautiful cover art and also Chaplain (MAJ) Stephen Dicks 

for drawing the cartoon representing my philosophy of the post-modern 

church and Non-Theistic Life Stance Humanism. Thank you both for sharing your talent. Pro Deo et Patria!
vii

Foreword

More than two centuries ago George Washington wanted to ensure 

clergy were present to meet the religious needs of his soldiers. Thus the 

chaplaincy in America was born. Over the ensuing years the US Army has 

gone to battle a multitude of times, and the chaplain was always there. 

The Army of today has evolved into something far beyond that ever 

conceived by General Washington, as has its chaplaincy. I doubt that he 

ever envisioned the wide variety of activities chaplains of the future would 

undertake, nor would he have guessed the diversity of religious needs that 

soldiers of the future would present. But Washington would recognize one 

thing that has not changed: the chaplain present with the troops, providing 

for their religious needs.

But is this still the primary mission of chaplains: to provide religious 

support for soldiers? With the changing landscape of belief systems and 

spiritual stances, should the chaplaincy evolve to support a wider audience, or is the original mission still valid?

This is a very difficult and complicated question and will not be resolved any time soon. 

This monograph is an excellent beginning for the discussion. Well-balanced, considerate and respectful, Chaplain Val Van Dress presents many 

of the legal and constitutional issues as well as the theological and philosophical debate between parties with different views on the issues. She 

has engaged people who represent a wide variety of viewpoints: both military and civilian, some with strong Theistic faith backgrounds, others who 

would characterize themselves as Humanist or Atheist. All of these voices 

are unique, and must be heard. 

It is my hope that after reading this, others will be encouraged to add 

their voices to the discussion, for this discussion is essential as the chaplaincy finds its way into the future.

Chaplain (Colonel) Barbara Sherer

Chaplain, Combined Arms Center

ix

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments....................................................................................v

Foreword................................................................................................vii

Acronyms................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1: Why Would Atheists Want to be Chaplains?..........................1

Chapter 2: What is Humanism? ...............................................................9

Chapter 3: Obstacles to the Acceptance of Non-Religious 

Chaplains................................................................................................13

Chapter 4: The US Army Chaplaincy: Its History and Purpose ............19

Chapter 5: The Atheist Chaplain Debate: Support and Opposition .......31

Chapter 6: A Growing Non-Theistic Population?..................................39

Chapter 7: How Would Atheists Provide Religious Support? ...............45

Chapter 8: Is Humanism a Religion? .....................................................51

Chapter 9: How Can an Atheist Serve as a Religious Leader? ..............59

Chapter 10: Is the Chaplaincy Responsible for Non-Theistic

Life Stance Groups?...............................................................................63

Chapter 11: Should the US Army Have Atheist Chaplains?..................67

Chapter 12: A Recommendation for Humanist Support 

Outside of the Chaplaincy......................................................................73

Chapter 13: What if Humanist Chaplains are Approved?......................77

Glossary .................................................................................................81

Appendix A............................................................................................83

Appendix B............................................................................................85

Appendix C.......................................................................................... 115

Appendix D.......................................................................................... 117

Appendix E ..........................................................................................139

Bibliography ........................................................................................143

xi

Acronyms

AFCB Armed Forces Chaplains Board

CHBOLC Chaplain Basic Officer Leader Course

CLRCR Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

CMRP Command Master Religious Plan

CSF2 Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness

DFGL Distinctive Faith Group Leader (obsolete as of 23 July 2015)

DRGL Distinctive Religious Group Leader

DoD Department of Defense

DoDD Department of Defense Directive

DoDI Department of Defense Instruction

GAT Global Assessment Tool

IRS Internal Revenue Service

IMCOM Installation Management Command

MAAF Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers

NRLSL Non-Religious Life Stance Leader

NTLS Non-Theistic Life Stance 

NRP No Religious Preference

OED Oxford English Dictionary

RMP Religious Ministry Professional

RSP Religious Support Plan

USC United States Code

xiii

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Breakdown of US Army Chaplains by faith group 

and component, 2015.............................................................................23

Figure 2: Percentage change in active duty Army religious 

preferences by faith group, 2004-2013 ..................................................40

Figure 3: MAAF research on proportion of DoD chaplain 

support in relation to the DoD population, 2012 ..................................41

Figure 4: Humanism’s striking resemblance to post-modern 

Christianity.............................................................................................70

Figure 5: Suggested religious insignia on Chaplain Army 

Combat Uniform....................................................................................77

1

Chapter 1

Why Would Atheists Want to be Chaplains?

It may seem antithetical to consider the prospect of atheist Army chaplains, but support continues to grow in the atheist, agnostic, and humanist populations for non-theistic military chaplains. In 2014, the US Navy 

rejected an atheist applicant from becoming the Navy’s first Humanist 

chaplain. After being turned down, Jason Heap filed a lawsuit with the 

Department of Defense (DoD), claiming discrimination because of his beliefs as a Humanist.1

 The case is still pending before the United States District Court.2

 Humanism is not the only non-theistic movement claiming its 

place among religion. An essay by Roger Scruton on Heritage.org claims 

that traditional religion in Europe is being replaced by an inherently foundationless quasi-religion of human rights.3

 In this regard, Humanism and 

human rights have much in common. One difference, at least for now, is 

that no one who professes “human rights” as a religion is trying to become 

a military chaplain in the United States. 

This push for non-theistic chaplains is not happening exclusively in 

the Navy. A population of atheistic Humanists wants the Army to appoint 

Humanist Chaplains in the US Army Chaplain Corps as well. They claim 

this non-theistic group should have the opportunity to serve and be served 

by chaplains who share their beliefs. 

Currently, this group of Humanists feels they will not be accorded 

equal support and benefits from the Chaplain Corps until they have their 

own chaplain representation. These benefits include receiving assistance 

in building community and developing values. They want the opportunity for Soldiers to participate in life cycle ceremonial events and receive 

confidential counseling from someone who shares a similar life stance 

system of beliefs. Presently, all Soldiers have the opportunity to receive 

non-religious counseling through Behavioral Health, but these visits are 

recorded in official military records and do not hold the same level of confidentiality as when visiting a chaplain. Humanists would like to assemble 

for “services” and enjoy refreshments and fellowship afterward, but the 

Chaplaincy only offers this opportunity to religious groups. Moreover, it 

is not clear whether the DoD considers Humanism a religion, even though 

the Army approved Humanism as a religious “preference code” for official military records in April 2014. This study will examine whether or 

not the US Army should start appointing such Humanist chaplains and 

subsequently offer this population the same benefits afforded to theistic 

religious groups.
2

 The terms “Humanist” and “humanist” have variant definitions making it somewhat difficult to discuss the issue with common understanding. These terms will be defined in greater detail in the next chapter. For 

clarification, the Humanists (with a capital ‘H’) referenced in this book 

have an atheistic worldview that is neither supernatural, metaphysical, 

nor includes a divine being; hence, the discussion of “atheist” chaplains. 

However, it is important to note that not all who refer to themselves as humanists are atheists (some are Christian, Jewish, agnostic, etc.). Ergo, for 

the purpose of delineating this particular group of non-theistic humanists, 

they will be referred to as Non-Theistic Life Stance (NTLS) Humanists or 

simply Humanists with a capital ‘H’ throughout this book. NTLS Humanist chaplains are active throughout the world, serving in such places as the 

Dutch Armed Forces and also American universities – to include Harvard 

and Stanford. 

Because the available literature on the subject of atheist chaplains was 

limited, I researched this topic by conducting dialogical interviews with 

six Humanists and six Army chaplains. The ongoing interviews took place 

in the fall and winter of 2012 as I worked on this project, which began as 

a thesis prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master 

of Military Art and Science degree at the Command and General Staff 

College at Fort Leavenworth, KS. 

To provide the most comprehensive view of the issue, interviewees 

were selected based upon their understanding of the topic. Each participant agreed to the terms of the Consent and Use Agreement for Interview 

Materials.

The following humanists participated in the interviews:

1. Jason Torpy, President of the Military Association of Atheists and 

Freethinkers, and also the military chaplain endorsing agent for the Humanist Society; West Point graduate, Iraq War veteran, and former Army 

Captain.

2. Tom Flynn, Executive Director for the Council for Secular Humanism; Editor for the Free Inquiry magazine; and Executive Producer for 

American Freethought.

3. Chaplain Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University 

and Executive Director of the humanist community serving the Harvard 

and surrounding communities; ordained as a Humanist Rabbi from the 

International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism.
3

4. Jason Heap, Humanist Celebrant endorsed by the Humanist Society; Humanist applicant for the US Navy Chaplaincy.

5. Major Ray Bradley, Secular Humanist Distinctive Faith Group 

Leader applicant for the US Army.

6. Lt. Col. Erwin Kamp, Humanist Chaplain in the Dutch Navy who 

also served in the Royal Dutch Marines; serves presently as the Dutch 

equivalent for the National Director for chaplains of the Dutch Veterans 

Administration.

The following chaplains also participated in the interviews:

1. Chaplain (COL) Ronald Thomas, former Command Chaplain for 

the Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

2. Chaplain (COL) John Read, Command Chaplain for the Southern 

Regional Medical Command; served as Director for the Center for World 

Religions at the United States Army Chaplain Center and School May 

2012 to September 2013; also served as the Senior Chaplain for the Office 

of Security Cooperation in Iraq from December 2011 to May 2012.

3. Chaplain (LTC) Doyle Coffman, Deputy Command Chaplain for 

the Installation Management Command, Fort Sam Houston, TX.

4. Chaplain (MAJ) Seth George, World Religions Instructor at the 

Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

5. Chaplain (CPT) Jonathan Fisher, former Chaplain for the Joint Regional Correctional Facility, Fort Leavenworth, KS and facilitator of a 

non-religious discussion for inmates entitled, “Men of Reason.”

6. Chaplain (CPT) Thomas Dyer, Army’s first Buddhist Chaplain.

I personally conducted interviews with each of the participants listed 

above. Some responded to the questions sent ahead of time with written 

responses. Providing written responses gave each participant time to answer the questions thoughtfully and with greater detail. Nine out of the 

twelve participants responded in writing. Three humanists provided additional responses after reading the chaplain interviews.

Humanist leaders were interviewed first using the interview questions 

listed in Appendix A. At the end of the interview, each humanist participant 

was offered an opportunity to add any additional comments they thought 

were relevant to the discussion. All humanist interview responses were 

then presented to the Army chaplains prior to their respective interviews, 

so they would have a clear understanding of each humanist’s position.
4

Next interviews were conducted with six active duty Army chaplains 

using the interview questions listed in Appendix C. The goal of the interviews was to understand their perspectives on the issue as well as their 

views on how the Chaplain Corps would change with the addition of NTLS 

Humanist chaplains. At the conclusion of each interview, as with the humanists, the chaplains had an opportunity to add any additional comments 

relevant to the discussion.

After transcribing all of the Army chaplain responses, they were presented to the group of humanists who were originally interviewed. They 

were afforded the opportunity to add any additional comments to further 

substantiate or clarify their positions. Rather than simply using one-sided 

interviews, this method offered a more dialogical approach to gain a deeper understanding of all sides of the argument. It is important to note that 

the argument is not between the humanist leaders and Army chaplains. 

Rather, there are those who oppose and support the idea of non-theistic 

chaplains in both groups. The complete interviews are included by permission from the humanist leaders and US Army chaplains in Appendices 

D and E respectively.

Humanists interviewed for this work consider NTLS Humanism as 

a non-theistic religion. The term “non-religious” will also be used to describe NTLS Humanism at times throughout this work, as literature researched on the subject sometimes used “non-religious” and “non-theistic” interchangeably. The term “religious” in this context connotes a sense 

of transcendence – meaning it is associated with something spiritual, supernatural, divine, or beyond all physical laws and independent of the material universe. Therefore “non-religious” refers to the absence of any transcendent beliefs or practices, but it is not absent of sincerely held beliefs. 

“Religion,” which will be defined in greater detail in chapter 3, seems to 

be the barrier keeping Humanists out of the US Army Chaplaincy.

One of the earliest instances of a Humanist interest in the Army Chaplaincy came through a service member’s request to become a secular humanist Distinctive Faith Group Leader (DFGL) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. (In the past, the Army utilized DFGLs in the absence of a chaplain 

to provide for the religious requirements of a particular faith group.4

 The 

Army has since changed the title to Distinctive Religious Group Leader 

[DRGL].)5

 The US Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM) 

Chaplain’s office received the request, but the service member claims he 

never received an official response. The current understanding as to why 

this applicant has not been accepted seems to lie upon the belief that “if 

an organizations [sic] intent and or purpose is not religious or faith-based, 
5

then it may not reside within the purview of the chaplaincy.”6 The bottom 

line appears to be that the US Army Chaplaincy may not consider humanism as a religion, and therefore, humanist-centered activities would not 

fall under the purview of the Chaplaincy. 

This internal memorandum from the IMCOM Chaplain’s office suggested the following guidance: 

Since the request is to foster philosophy not religion, there is 

nothing preventing [the applicant] and other secular humanists 

at Fort Bragg from meeting as a Command sponsored private 

organization without the requirement of oversight by the Garrison 

Chaplain.7

According to this reasoning, in order to enjoy the same benefits as religious groups, a group must be identified as religious. Consequently, this 

interoffice correspondence was only one chaplain’s opinion and was never 

presented to the applicant. A cursory glance at the process leads one to 

believe that Humanists are free to gather and discuss their beliefs after 

receiving a simple approval from their commander.

Therefore, if Humanist Soldiers can gather as a command-sponsored 

private organization without oversight from a chaplain, it appears, on the 

surface, that the problem is solved. A spokesperson from the group of Humanist Soldiers simply needs to request permission from a commander. 

Some humanists may not have a problem with that approach whatsoever. 

However, NTLS Humanists do not simply want a place to meet to have 

philosophical discussions and socialize with each other. It appears that this 

growing non-theistic segment of individuals desires representation and the 

same rights that recognized religious groups on military installations have. 

Namely, they would like to meet on a regular basis to discuss relevant “life 

stance” topics using reason and science while offering non-theistic perspectives on “life cycle events” such as weddings, funerals, baby naming 

ceremonies, and divorce ceremonies. Humanists believe that they should 

not have to be entirely on their own to build community and develop values, while their theistic counterparts have a paid full-time chaplain to help 

with similar needs. From the Humanists’ perspective, the problem is not 

about “religion” but about ensuring that all Soldiers’ core values and beliefs are accorded equal treatment. 

Major Ray Bradley, the DFGL applicant referenced above, explains in 

an internet article on the website “The Blaze” how non-theists often feel 

marginalized: 
6

Soldiers who don’t believe in God can go to war with ‘Atheist’ 

stamped on their dog tags, but humanists and others with 

various secular beliefs are still officially invisible in the Army. . . 

Humanism is a philosophy that guides a person . . . It’s more than 

just a stamp of what you’re not.8

People like Major Bradley want non-theistic chaplain support, and they 

believe that Humanist chaplains can fill this void in the military. Humanist 

chaplains already exist in other organizations, such as Harvard University 

and the Dutch Armed Forces. If these chaplains are meeting a need in the 

collegiate and foreign military populations, there may be a similar need in 

the US Army as well. Having a regular meeting place and time to discuss 

philosophical or life stance issues with confidentiality, as well as having 

like-minded people with which to discuss these issues, seems to be the primary concern. To understand the Humanists’ perspective, the next chapter 

will discuss Humanism and how it has changed throughout history. 
7

Notes

1.Complaint Heap v. Hagel, 1:14-CV-1490-JCC-TCB (E. D. Va., 5 November 2014).

2. Heap v. Carter, 112 F. Supp. 3d 402, United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia, decided 1 July 1 2015.

3. Roger Scruton, “The Future of European Civilization: Lessons for America,” The Heritage Foundation (8 December 2015), http://www.heritage.org/

research/reports/2015/12/the-future-of-european-civilization-lessons-for-america 

(accessed 17 December 2015).

4. Department of the Army, Army Regulation (AR) 165-1, Army Chaplain 

Corps Activities (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2009), 16.

5. Department of the Army, Army Regulation (AR) 165-1, Army Chaplain 

Corps Activities (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2015), 12.

6. Installation Management Command Chaplain, Memorandum For: US 

Army Garrison, ATTN: CH (COL) David P. Hillis, Fort Bragg, NC, Subject: 

Exception to Policy Request for a Secular Humanist Distinguished Faith Group 

Leader, 27 February 2012.

7. Installation Management Command Chaplain, Memorandum, 27 February 2012.

8. Billy Hallowell, “Non-Theist Soldier Wants US Army to Officially Recognize Humanism as a ‘Faith’ Group,” The Blaze, 8 February 2012, http://www.

theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/08/non-theists-push-u-s-military-to-recognize-humanist-soldier-as-distinctive-faith-group-leader/ (accessed 14 October 2013).

9

Chapter 2

What is Humanism?

The term “humanism” has changed to encompass several definitions 

since the first known use of the term around the fifteenth century AD. The 

Oxford English Dictionary lists five different definitions for both “humanism” and “humanist.” During the Italian Renaissance, the term referred 

to studies in the humanities, to include languages, literature, arts, culture, 

and music. 

Desiderius Erasmus, one of the earliest named humanists, understood 

humanism as an internal expression of his faith. As a competent theologian, his view of a 

new and reformed (but fully Catholic) theology involved the 

application of humanistic learning to biblical exegesis. This meant 

mastery of the source-languages of the Bible, Hebrew and Greek 

and also the patristic Latin of the first Christian centuries.1

He adopted humanistic methods of studying and interpreting Scripture. 

This method examines the full background and context of the writing, 

along with the most likely intended meaning by the author.2

At the turn of the twentieth century, the term “humanism” took on 

the meaning for what is listed as the fifth definition in the Oxford English 

Dictionary: 

A Pragmatic system of thought introduced by F.C.S. Schiller and 

William James which emphasizes that man can only comprehend 

and investigate what is with the resources of the human minds, 

and discounts abstract theorizing; so more generally, implying 

that technological advance must be guided by awareness of widely 

understood human needs.3

Even today, in the twenty-first century, a vast difference between various 

definitions and philosophies of humanism exists to make defining the term 

difficult. Some groups consider the term to be void of any supernatural 

meaning. Other historically religious figures, such as Mother Theresa, 

Francis of Assisi, Erasmus and Martin Luther, considered themselves humanists.

The non-religious or non-theistic humanists are the focus of this book. 

However, even among the non-religious humanist groups, as with any religion of the world, beliefs range from one end of the spectrum to the other. 

For the most part, the groups working to endorse chaplains into the Army 
10

are atheistic in belief. They view humanism as a “life stance” system of 

beliefs that uses science to understand the world without God or gods. 

According to the American Humanist Association (AHA), 

Humanism is a progressive life-stance that, without 

supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead 

meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of 

humanity.4

This type of humanism requires individuals to create their own meaning in 

life and to build an ethical framework using science and reason. 

The Executive Director for the Council for Secular Humanism, Tom 

Flynn, describes three mainstream strands of humanism in the introduction of an article entitled, “Religious Humanism: Is It Dead, Alive, or Bifurcating?” The three strands are Secular, Religious, and Congregational. 

The article defines each as follows: 

Secular humanists reject supernaturalism and spirituality of 

any type. . . Religious Humanists embrace a metaphysical or 

transcendent element. . . Congregational humanists. . . [are] 

newcomers. . . who unconditionally reject supernaturalism, 

yet enthusiastically embrace forms and rituals drawn from the 

community life of the church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.5

It is important to note that not all Humanists agree with Mr. Flynn’s trilogy 

of definitions, but the definitions do provide a simplified context for the 

complex term.

In addition to the three strands of humanism mentioned in Flynn’s article, another form is Christian humanism, which acknowledges God and 

the humanity of Jesus Christ. There are dozens of adjectives that precede 

the term “humanism,” which, depending on the context, makes it difficult 

to define. It is important to note that because a Humanist may declare him 

or herself as a religious Humanist, the term “religious” does not always 

necessarily imply a sense of transcendence or theistic belief. Some NTLS 

Humanists identify as religious and some do not, hence the non-theistic 

identifier.

Edwin Wilson discusses various dimensions of humanism in The Humanist Alternative, a compilation of writings edited by Paul Kurtz. He 

explains that multiple, diverse Humanist associations were enrolled in the 

International Humanist and Ethical Union. Today there are one hundred 

member organizations, to include many atheist groups.6

 Various humanist 

groups formed this organization in Amsterdam in 1952. At that time, some 
11

of the humanist organizations included, but were not limited to, Dutch 

humanists, Canadian humanists, Korean humanists, scientific humanists, 

psychological humanists, ethical humanists, and religious humanists. 

Some groups such as the Norwegian humanists did not consider their organization as religious, unlike the Dutch humanists who pressed for recognition at the same level as Catholics and Protestants.7

Clearly, humanism includes people who are religious, theistic, atheistic, and agnostic. If some humanists are Christian, some are Jewish, some 

are Hindu, some are agnostic, and some are atheists, then humanism itself 

is not a religion; or is it? This is the question that lies at the heart of deciding whether or not the Army should have atheist chaplains in its ranks. On 

a Military Association of Atheist and Freethinkers (MAAF) webpage designed specifically for chaplains, the organization clearly states, “Humanists are also atheists.”8

 Since not all humanists are atheists, it is obvious 

that certain groups such as the MAAF have adopted this specific term to 

represent a particular set of beliefs. The MAAF is also the main group advocating for Humanist chaplains in the military. Therefore, to differentiate 

this particular atheistic group from other humanists, the label “Non-Theistic Life Stance Humanism” is the primary phrase used to designate this 

group explicitly for the purpose of this book. Defining this population of 

atheists is not the problem keeping Humanists out of the Chaplaincy. The 

two-pronged problem, as discussed in the next chapter, consists of identifying humanism with religion as well as the present culture of the Chaplaincy, whose motto is Pro Deo et Patria – For God and Country.
12

Notes

1. Charles Nauert, “Desiderius Erasmus,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of 

Philosophy (Winter 2012), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives /win2012/entries/

erasmus (accessed 26 October 2013).

2. Nauert, “Desiderius Erasmus,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

3. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “humanism,” 2nd ed., Vol 7, (Oxford: 

Clarendon Press, 1989), 475.

4. American Humanist Association, “Definitions of Humanism,” http://

americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Definitions_of_Humanism (accessed 14 

October 2013).

5. Council for Secular Humanism, http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.

php?section=fi&page=flynn_33_6 (accessed 14 October 2013).

6. International Humanist Ethical Union, “About IHEU,” http://iheu.org/

contacts (accessed 7 December 2013).

7. Edwin H. Wilson, “Humanism’s Many Dimensions,” in The Humanist 

Alternative, ed. Paul Kurtz (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973), 16-17.

8. Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, “Chaplain Outreach,” 

http://militaryatheists.org/chaplain/ (accessed 16 February 2014). 
13

Chapter 3

Obstacles to the Acceptance of Non-Religious Chaplains

Two main obstacles inhibit the US Army from appointing Humanist 

chaplains. The first obstacle is accepting Humanism as a religion, and the 

second is the theistic culture of the Chaplain Corps. To understand how 

Humanism aligns with religion, there must first be an understanding of 

what religion is and what it is not. This is a debate that will not be settled 

any time soon, but it provides some context and a starting place at which 

we can begin to uncover the underlying issues.

Religion is a term with numerous definitions. The Oxford English 

Dictionary lists eight definitions for the term; the first reads, “A state of 

life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a 

religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church.”1

 The sixth definition 

reads, “Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.”2

 The differences in definitions 

may be due to the variance in etymology. The Latin term religionem, or 

its nominative religio, means “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the 

gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation.”3 Cicero used 

the term relegere, which contains re- “again” and legere “read” meaning to go through or read again.4

 The Oxford English Dictionary suggests 

that later authors prefer the term religàre, which means, “to bind.”5

 Later 

ancients such as Servius and Augustine agreed that the term referred to a 

bond between humans and gods, in which case the re- is intensive.6

The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions suggests that the underlying etymology of the term religio is uncertain but agrees with the later 

majority that the term essentially means “to bind things together.” This 

definition draws attention to an obvious and important aspect of religion 

by binding people together united by common beliefs and practices.7

 Consequently, the term “religion” can hold different meanings depending on 

one’s preferred definition. It must also be noted that humanism of any kind 

is not mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. 

When used in this book, the term “religious” is defined from the term 

religio and holds an association with beliefs and practices that are sacred 

and involve some level of transcendence. Again, the term may legitimately 

be defined differently, but for the reader to understand the argument presented in this work, the term holds the aforementioned transcendent connotation when discussing “religious” and “non-religious” activities and 
14

beliefs. The organization trying to endorse Humanist chaplains defines religion differently, which adds a problematic complexity to this discussion.

The Humanist Society is the organization working to endorse the first 

Humanist chaplain into the military. The organization began as a Christian 

organization in 1939. It was in December of 1939 under the state laws 

of California that a group of Quakers formed the Humanist Society of 

Friends as a “religious, educational, charitable nonprofit organization.”8

It has since dropped the “of Friends” designation and is presently named 

simply the Humanist Society. Today, the Humanist Society is designated as a religious organization by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and 

holds tax-exempt status. In addition, it also meets the DoD policy definition of “religious organization” which is defined as, 

An entity that is organized and functions primarily to perform 

religious ministries to a non-military lay constituency and that has 

met the religious purposes test of section 501(c)(3) of title 26, 

United States Code (Reference (i)), and holds current status as a 

section 501(c)(3) Schedule “A” organization.9

Even though the Humanist Society as an organization is no longer Christian, they qualify for IRS tax exemption status as a “church” and therefore 

believe they are qualified to endorse military chaplains. They have met the 

policy requirement of holding a “religious organization” status, but they 

do not yet meet the DoD policy requirement to qualify as an endorsing 

agency.

The Department of Defense issues official policy for military chaplaincies through DoD Directives and Instructions. Two main Instructions 

lay out policy for religious support in the military. The first covers religious accommodation for service members, and the second covers the 

process of approval for new endorsing agencies. 

DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1300.17, updated on 22 January 2014, is the 

DoDI that defines the policy for Accommodation of Religious Practices 

Within the Military Services. This issuance sets forth the policy for religious accommodation for all branches of the military. Specifically, it states 

that the exercise of religion “includes any religious practice(s), whether or 

not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief [emphasis in 

original].”10 Furthermore, it states, 

Military Departments will accommodate individual expressions of 

sincerely held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious 

beliefs) of Service members in accordance with the policies and 

procedures in this instruction [emphasis in original].

11
15

According to DoDI 1300.17, commanders will accommodate religious 

practices and sincerely held beliefs whether they are compelled by a system of religious beliefs or not. The point here is that, “accommodating 

sincerely held beliefs” does not necessarily require a chaplain for accommodation. Soldiers’ sincerely held beliefs may or may not be religious in 

nature, and the commander is the one who decides how to best accommodate such beliefs. Identifying Humanism as either a religion or as sincerely 

held beliefs (or both) makes it difficult to resolve this issue.

The second DoD Instruction on religious support, DoDI 1304.28, 

outlines the requirements and process used by the DoD to recognize an 

organization as an official religious endorsing authority. As of this writing, 

no officially qualified Humanist organization has been accepted by the 

DoD, because no qualified candidates have been accepted. A branch of the 

Armed Forces must approve a fully qualified candidate as fit for military 

service before a new endorsing agency will be considered for approval. In 

other words, until one of the Military Departments accepts an applicant 

as qualified, a prospective endorsing agency will not have a complete 

packet for consideration. The only Humanist organization that is close to 

receiving approval is the Humanist Society.

The Humanist Society claims to have met the requirement of paragraph 6.1.1.2 of DoDI 1304.28 which states,

If a religious organization has not previously endorsed military 

chaplains, it shall file the administrative documents required by 

Enclosure 3 in conjunction with the endorsement of its first fully 

qualified RMP [Religious Ministry Professional] in an application 

for appointment as a chaplain for a Military Department.12

However, according to this DoDI, a single missing document from the 

Military Department (in this case, the Navy) renders the packet incomplete. DoDI 1304.28 specifically states, 

The Armed Forces Chaplains Board (AFCB) shall accept the 

required documents only when the applicable Military Department 

has determined the RMP is fully qualified in all ways other than 

ecclesiastical endorsement [emphasis added].13

Therefore, even though the Humanist Society has completely filed all the 

required documents from their organization, and the applicant meets all of 

the ecclesiastical endorsement requirements, the packet is not complete 

until the AFCB receives a letter from the US Navy qualifying the applicant.
16

According to the endorser for the Humanist Society, Jason Heap submitted all the required documents to become the first Navy Humanist 

Chaplain in the summer of 2013. However, after a long wait, the Navy 

rejected Dr. Heap’s application in May 2014. Therefore, as of today, none 

of the US Military Departments have approved a qualified Humanist candidate for its Chaplaincy, which also means that the Humanist Society still 

holds an incomplete packet for consideration as an approved endorsing 

agency. For some members of Congress, this process is not acceptable. 

In the summer of 2013, the House of Representatives tried to 

authorize an alternative way to fund non-theistic chaplains; it resulted in a 

spurious attempt to demonize Humanist and other non-religious ministry 

professionals. Many on-line bloggers claimed that Congress voted against 

Humanist chaplains in the military. The fact is, the House Appropriations 

Committee adopted Amendment 160 as part of the approved fiscal year 2014 

Defense Appropriations Bill, which reads, “Amendment prevents funds 

from being used to appoint chaplains without an endorsing agency.”14 The 

bill did not prevent funds from supporting atheist or Humanist Chaplains 

(even though that was clearly the intent), but from appointing chaplains 

without an endorsing agency. NTLS Humanists have an endorsing agency 

– the Humanist Society – but as stated earlier, no Military Department 

has qualified a Humanist applicant that meets the DoD requirements. The 

Humanist Society claims that the reason the Navy rejected Jason Heap 

was because his endorsing agency is non-theistic. This is the first problem.

The other obstacle inhibiting the US Army from appointing Humanist 

chaplains is the culture of the Chaplaincy. A point that causes great tension 

deals with the US Army Chaplain Corps motto, which reads, “Pro Deo et 

Patria . . . For God and Country.” According to Army Regulation 165-1, 

chaplains 

must have the capability to perform or provide religious support 

that accommodates the Soldier’s right to the free exercise of 

religion and support resilience efforts to sustain Soldiers, Family 

members, and authorized Civilians.15

According to this Army Regulation, chaplains either perform or provide 

religious support.

Chaplains perform religious rites, ceremonies, ordinances, and sacraments according to the tenets of their particular religious beliefs. If the 

tenets of their faith do not permit them to perform a religious requirement, 

they provide the distinctive religious support by connecting the Soldier, 

family member, or civilian to a religious ministry professional who can 
17

perform the requested religious requirements. This raises the question: 

how could an atheist align with either the Chaplain motto or the regulation to perform or provide religious support? One might presume that an 

atheist could not possibly perform any religious requirements for Soldiers; 

at best they would have to provide every aspect of religious support. So 

with such obstacles, why would a Humanist want to be an Army chaplain 

at all? Do Humanists even need chaplain support? These questions lie at 

the heart of deciding whether or not there should be atheist chaplains in 

the US Army. 

Additional questions that demand answers are the following: What is 

the purpose of the US Army Chaplaincy? Is Humanism a religion? How 

could an atheist or agnostic provide religious support or serve as a religious leader? What are the religious needs of the non-theistic population? Should non-theistic life stance groups fall under the purview of the 

Chaplaincy? These are the questions the remainder of this study seeks to 

answer. The next chapter looks at the history and purpose of the US Army 

Chaplaincy, which serves as the foundational basis for addressing these 

questions.
18

Notes

1. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “religion,” 2nd ed., Vol 13 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 568.

2. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “religion,” 569.

3. Douglas Harper, s.v. “religion,” Online Etymology Dictionary, http://

www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=religion&-

searchmode=none (accessed 14 February 2014).

4. Harper, s.v. “religion,” Online Etymology Dictionary.

5. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “religion,” 568.

6. Harper, s.v. “religion,” Online Etymology Dictionary.

7. Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, (Oxford University Press, Oxford: 

1997), xvi.

8. The Humanist Society, “about,” http://humanist-society.org/about/ (accessed 8 March 2014).

9. Department of Defense, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 

1304.28, Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments, Incorporating Change 3. Effective 20 March 2014, http://www.dtic.mil/

whs/directives/corres/pdf/130428p.pdf (accessed 16 October 2013), 12.

10. Department of Defense, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 

1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services, 

Incorporating Change 1, Effective 22 January 2014, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/

directives/corres/pdf/130017p.pdf (accessed 9 March 2014), 2.

11. Department of Defense, DoDI 1300.17, 3.

12. Department of Defense, DoDI 1304.28, 3.

13. Department of Defense, DoDI 1304.28, 3.

14. Gop.gov, Legislative Digest, http://www.gop.gov/bill/113/1/hr2397 

(accessed 14 October 2013).

15. Department of the Army, AR 165-1, 2015, 6.
19

Chapter 4

The US Army Chaplaincy: Its History and Purpose

United States Army chaplains perform or provide religious support to 

accommodate the right of free exercise of religion for all military members, family members, and authorized Department of Defense civilians.1

This is the primary purpose of the Army Chaplain Corps. As stated in the 

previous chapter, if the chaplain cannot perform the religious rite, sacrament, ordinance, or religious requirement requested by an individual or 

group of individuals, the chaplain is responsible to provide religious support based on available resources. If a Soldier requests a religious book, 

the chaplain will attempt to supply that Soldier with the requested book. 

The chaplain will also try to connect the Soldier to an approved religious 

group leader of that particular religion. 

Presently, many chaplains do not provide non-theistic support with 

scientific or philosophical literature to help meet the philosophical needs 

of their non-religious Soldiers. Non-Theistic Life Stance Humanists are 

working to change this paradigm and actively seek a path to ensure representation within the Army Chaplain Corps through Distinctive Religious 

Group Leaders (DRGLs) and chaplains. This chapter will review the history and purpose of the Army Chaplaincy to provide some background 

and context for the debate on appointing Humanist or atheist chaplains 

into the Army. 

A History of the US Army Chaplaincy

As a precursor to answering the question, “What is the purpose of the 

Army Chaplaincy?” it will be useful to provide some context by tracing 

the history of the 240 year-old Chaplaincy from its roots. According to 

documents in the Chaplain Corps official history, the US Army Chaplaincy has spiritual roots in both the pages of the Old Testament and the British military forces. Dating back to the Biblical reference of Deuteronomy 

20:2-4, clergymen were appointed to accompany soldiers in battle to lift 

morale by providing words of spiritual comfort and patriotic sentiments.2

The Christian Church built its Chaplaincy upon the same Old Testament 

concept and decreed a place for military clergy in Canon 2 of the Council 

of Ratisbon in 742 AD:

We prohibit the servant of God in every way from bearing arms 

or fighting in the army or going against the enemy except those 

alone who because of the sacred office, namely, for celebrating 

mass and caring for the relics of the saints, have been designated 
20

for this office; that is and each captain may have one priest, in 

order to hear-confessions of the men and impose upon them the 

proper penance.3

Chaplains cared for the relics of the saints as early as the fourth century. In fact, the word “chaplain” dates back to the fourth century legend of 

Martin of Tours, a pagan Roman soldier. The story is told that St. Martin, 

when he was a soldier, cut his cloak in half and gave it to a shivering beggar.4

 That same night he experienced a vision of a man who was dressed 

in the half cloak, a man whom Martin believed to be Christ. Afterward, he 

converted to Christianity and was deeply devoted to the church. Following 

his death, he was canonized and later became known as the patron saint of 

France. Subsequently, Frankish kings carried his cloak into battle as a holy 

relic. In Latin, his cloak was called

the “cappa.” Its portable shrine was called the “capella” and its 

caretaker priest, the “cappellanus.” Eventually, all clergy affiliated 

with military were called “capellani,” or in French “chapelains,” 

hence chaplains.5

Chaplains were so called because they were originally charged with protecting the half cape – or cappa – of St. Martin. 

A chaplain came to be known as a minister or custodian who was in 

charge of the chapel, or tent, where St. Martin’s cloak and other sacred 

relics were preserved.6

 Chaplains not only guarded such relics but also 

conducted Mass and gradually became known for providing both ecclesiastical and secular advice to the monarch, particularly during the reign of 

Charlemagne. The term is associated with the early centuries of the Christian church. Today, the term refers to an ordained clergy member who is 

assigned to a special ministry, such as in a hospital, prison, university, 

legislative chamber, or the armed forces, rather than a particular church or 

denomination.7

By the late sixteenth century, during the reign of the Tudor Dynasy in 

England, chaplains had clearly defined duties. The regimental commander 

was responsible “to have a well-governed and religious preacher in his 

regiment so that by his life and doctrines the soldiers may be drawn to 

goodness.”8

 The preacher would hold morning and evening formations, 

and on Sundays, the unit commander compelled soldiers (who were not on 

guard duty) to attend prayers and a sermon in the Colonel’s tent. The chaplain’s primary duty was, “to have ‘care of souls,’ and it is well if he meddle 

with no other business, but make that his only care.”9

 After the regimental 

chaplain system was abolished in 1796, an organized chaplain department 
21

was formed, and care for souls remained the chaplain’s primary duty. Similar to the duties of British chaplains, American chaplains’ duties were also 

to care for souls as well as perform 

traditional clerical functions of preaching, praying, administering 

the rites, sacraments, and ordinances of the Church, visiting the 

sick, and burying the dead.10

Between the founding of Jamestown and 1775, emerging colonial 

Americans saw nearly continuous war with both the French and the Native American tribes as each side battled for control of the continent. When 

the colonial militia went into battle, a local minister, preferably young and 

physically capable, accompanied the troops dressed in his black broadcloth suit. Religion played a major role in the lives of Americans during 

this time, and the community viewed the minister as a powerful authority 

figure. In fact, “not even a minor military operation was planned or carried 

out without making sure that a minister was available to counsel and motivate the colonial fighting man.”11 Then on 29 July 1775, the Continental 

Congress voted to pay chaplains twenty dollars a month (the same amount 

paid to captains), thus giving chaplains official recognition by the American government and an official birth date of the Chaplaincy.

On 9 July 1776, General George Washington issued the following 

General Order pertaining to chaplains: 

The Honorable Continental Congress having been pleased to allow 

a Chaplain to each Regiment, with the pay of Thirty-Three Dollars 

and one third dollars [per] month – The Colonels or commanding 

officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains 

accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives – 

To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable 

respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing 

and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially 

so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and 

trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act 

as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and 

Liberties of his country.12

General Washington and General Rufus Putnam recommended a 

chaplain be assigned to each regiment as part of the military structure, but 

Congress felt the regiment was too small and thus chaplains were assigned 

to each brigade until 1818. After that time, chaplains were no longer assigned to brigades but instead served with state militias. Then on 14 April 

1818, The Act for Regulating the Staff of the Army
22

permitted “one chaplain, stationed at the Military Academy at 

West Point, who shall also be Professor of Geography, History, 

and Ethics, with the pay and emoluments allowed the Professor 

of Mathematics.”13

Between 1818 and 1838, the chaplain at West Point was the only authorized Regular Army chaplain. On 5 July 1838, the Army established the 

position of post chaplains, which began with 15 posts and expanded to 40 

by 1849. 

At the beginning of the war with Mexico in 1846, the Army Chaplaincy contained only Protestant chaplains. The absence of Roman Catholic chaplains became such a problem that the White House collaborated 

with two Bishops to resolve the issue. Within six weeks, two Jesuit priests 

joined the Army on the Rio Grande. However, in 1850, the problem was 

not the absence of one particular faith group but rather an opposition to 

the Chaplaincy altogether. Critics maintained that it was unconstitutional 

for chaplains to be employed by the Federal Government. The judiciary 

committee defended the Chaplaincy that year and also in 1853 and again 

in 1856.14

In 1861, regimental chaplains were appointed “as the President may 

direct” and were “ordained ministers of some Christian denomination.” 

However, the qualification was changed almost a year later to read, 

That no person shall be appointed a chaplain in the United 

States Army who is not a regularly ordained minister of some 

religious denomination, and who does not present testimonials 

of his good standing as such minister, with a recommendation 

of his appointment as an Army chaplain from some authorized 

ecclesiastical body, or not less than five accredited ministers 

belonging to said religious denomination.15

It was not until the Civil War that the Army Chaplaincy saw a significant increase in Roman Catholic field chaplains as well as its first Jewish, 

black, and Native American chaplains.16 After the turn of the century, the 

Chaplain Corps began emerging as a professional branch as the result of 

three major developments. In 1909, a Board of Chaplains was created for 

the purpose of analyzing recommendations and suggestions for an effective Chaplaincy. Then on 9 February 1918, the Army established a school 

to train chaplains and chaplain candidates.17 Finally, the National Defense 

Act of 4 June 1920 included a provision to appoint a Chief of Chaplains. 

On 15 June 1920, Congregationalist John Thomas Axton became the first 

Army Chief of Chaplains.18
23

Through the years of World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the 

Cold War, chaplains continued their duties to provide religious services, 

visit the sick and wounded, conduct funerals, and provide ethical and educational training to the troops. They also conducted religious retreats and 

gave lectures on character guidance and venereal diseases. Additionally, 

chaplains held workshops for drug users and often provided activities to 

boost morale. After the My Lai incident, chaplains provided training on 

how to report atrocities and other legal matters. Even chaplains needed 

training on how to report such events as the My Lai massacre, because 

a helicopter pilot reported to a chaplain that, “civilians had been unnecessarily and purposefully killed during the operation.”19 Apparently this 

chaplain only passed on a verbal report of the incident, which was subsequently passed on to division staff, but no written record could be found 

to substantiate the original chaplain’s report from the pilot. Conflicting 

reports came out a year and a half after the event claiming that the chaplain 

reported some other event unrelated to the atrocities of My Lai.20

The religious denominations composing the chaplaincy – Protestant, 

Catholic, and Jewish – broadened to include the Eastern Orthodox Church 

in 1979. In 1987, the Buddhist Churches of America was approved as 

an ecclesiastical endorsing agency for Buddhist chaplains.21 The Army 

Figure 1: Breakdown of US Army Chaplains by faith group and component, 

2015. Source: DACH-1 strength reports for Active Duty and through telephonic/email solicitation from the Army Reserves and National Guard. The 

data was collected over a period a months and is not intended as a precise or 

exacting account but rather a working number for planning purposes. Note: 

this data is NOT an official Army count.
24

approved its first Muslim chaplain in 1993, its first Buddhist chaplain in 

2008 (National Guard), and its first Hindu chaplain in 2011.22 Today the 

Army is comprised of over 3,000 active duty, National Guard, and Reserve 

chaplains. See Figure 1 on the previous page for a breakdown of the US 

Army Chaplain Corps by denomination and component.

Purpose of the US Army Chaplaincy

The history of the chaplain corps provided some context for understanding the purpose of the Chaplaincy. The US Army Chaplaincy recognizes its purpose to support the Constitution of the United States by 

following Title 10 of the US Code (USC), DoD Policy, Army regulations, 

religious requirements, and the Army mission.23 The publication that establishes policies and responsibilities along with the administrative procedures necessary to implement policies on Religious Support is Army 

Regulation 165-1, Army Chaplain Corps Activities. Field Manual 1-05, 

Religious Support describes how chaplains and chaplain assistants carry 

out their responsibilities in the field. 

Section 3073 in Title 10 of the USC provides the legal basis for chaplains as it states, 

There are chaplains in the Army. The Chaplains include – (1) the 

Chief of Chaplains; (2) commissioned officers of the Regular 

Army appointed as chaplains; and (3) other officers of the Army 

appointed as chaplains in the Army.24

Section 3547 prescribes the legal duties and responsibilities of chaplains 

as well as the assistance required of commanding officers with regard to 

chaplains. It specifically states, 

(a) Each chaplain shall, when practicable, hold appropriate 

religious services at least once on each Sunday for the command 

to which he is assigned, and shall perform appropriate religious 

burial services for members of the Army who die while in that 

command. (b) Each commanding officer shall furnish facilities, 

including necessary transportation, to any chaplain assigned to his 

command, to assist the chaplain in performing his duties.25

Section 3581 provides the final Federal legal requirement by stipulating, 

“A chaplain has rank without command.”26 Federal law requires the Army 

to appoint non-commanding chaplains as commissioned officers to hold 

appropriate weekly religious services and perform appropriate burial services. 
25

Department of Defense Directive 1304.19 provides the policy directive for appointing Chaplains for the Military Departments. This directive 

provides the reason for the establishment of Chaplaincies in Military Departments:

[Chaplaincies] are established to advise and assist commanders 

in the discharge of their responsibilities to provide for the free 

exercise of religion in the context of military service as guaranteed 

by the Constitution, to assist commanders in managing Religious 

Affairs. . . and to serve as the principal advisors to commanders for 

all issues regarding the impact of religion on military operations. 

. . [Chaplains] shall serve a religiously diverse population. Within 

the military, commanders are required to provide comprehensive 

religious support to all authorized individuals within their areas of 

responsibility.27

This directive explicitly describes the purpose of Army Chaplains: to 

advise and assist commanders in providing for the free exercise of religion according to the Constitution of the United States and to serve as the 

principal advisor to commanders regarding religion as it impacts military 

operations. The commander is the one who is responsible to provide comprehensive religious support for the unit under his or her command. The 

chaplain is the resource the commander uses to accomplish that directive.

The Chief of Chaplains further directs how chaplains carry out their 

duties and responsibilities through written policy on Religious Support 

as found in Army Regulation 165-1. Chaplains conduct religious support 

operations based on three principles: to Nurture the Living, Care for the 

Wounded, and Honor the Fallen. They deliver religious support through 

two core capabilities: professional military religious leader and professional military religious advisor. Field Manual 1-05 defines Religious 

Support as, 

providing those aspects of religious education, clergy counsel, 

pastoral care, authentic worship, and faith group expression that 

would otherwise be denied as a practical matter to soldiers under 

the varied circumstances of military contingencies.28

As professional military religious leaders, chaplains “perform” or 

“provide” religious support that meets the unique religious and spiritual needs of the military culture. They perform religious requirements according to the tenets of their faith. When unable to perform a religious 

requirement because of the tenets of their faith, they provide for the needed requirements by connecting the individual or group of individuals to 
26

another religious ministry professional who can perform the needed religious requirements.

As professional military religious support staff advisors, chaplains 

serve as personal staff officers to their commanders and provide professional advice regarding the First Amendment to the US Constitution that 

prohibits enactment of any law “respecting an establishment of religion” 

or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”29 This is important because the 

Establishment Clause forbids any governmental authority from mandating 

a certain religion or particular form of prayer. Additionally, the Free 

Exercise Clause guarantees each person the right to practice the religious 

requirements as dictated by his or her faith and conscience.

Chaplains also provide religious advisement to the command and 

staff on matters of religion, morals, and morale as affected by religion. 

They participate in operational planning and deliver religious support in 

all phases of military operations. Furthermore, chaplains provide moral, 

spiritual, ethical, and leadership training and conduct programs that foster 

the development and sustainment of spiritual resiliency.30

Additionally, chaplains provide confidential counseling to military 

constituents. Chapter 16-2 of AR 165-1 defines confidential communication: 

Confidential communication is any communication given to a 

chaplain by an individual, to include enemy prisoners of war, if 

such communication is made either as a formal act of religion or 

as a matter of conscience. A communication is “confidential” if 

made to a chaplain in the chaplain’s capacity as a spiritual advisor 

or to a religious affairs specialist in his or her official capacity and 

is not intended to be disclosed to third persons.31

It is important to note that, 

The privilege of non-disclosure of confidential information belongs 

to the individual. . . The privilege may also be claimed on behalf of 

the person by the chaplain or religious affairs specialist (formerly 

known as chaplain assistant) who received the communication.32

Privileged communication is not limited to religious or theistic personnel. 

Everyone who speaks to a chaplain or religious affairs specialist has the 

right to confidential communication as long as the communication is a 

formal religious act or a matter of conscience. 

In the pluralistic military setting, chaplains provide religious support 

opportunities for personnel of all religions. They collaborate across the 
27

religious spectrum – without compromising the tenets of their faith or ecclesiastical requirements – to perform or provide comprehensive religious 

support.33 Therefore, the answer to the question “What is the purpose of 

the Army Chaplaincy?” is to advise and assist commanders in providing 

for the free exercise of religion according to the Constitution of the United 

States and to serve as the principal advisor to commanders regarding religion as it impacts military operations. Chaplains provide comprehensive 

religious support and serve as religious leaders in their units. 

Although it is not a policy requirement to provide atheistic resources 

and other non-religious support, chaplains do provide support to all personnel to which they are assigned, including both religious and non-religious personnel. Non-religious needs such as community development 

and teaching how to adapt to difficult circumstances outside of a theological context are not the chaplain’s primary purpose. Chaplains do, however, spend time with non-religious Soldiers to find out how they can best 

provide support – whether it is helping with stress or anger management, 

suicide intervention, work-related tensions, relationship issues, or other 

personal struggles. Chaplains provide support to all personnel in their 

command regardless of their religious preference. Chaplains also receive 

training in solution-focused counseling which includes the importance 

of knowing when to refer to other agencies or helping professions. Even 

though chaplains provide support for non-theistic Soldiers, the push for 

appointing non-theistic chaplains has been gaining traction.
28

Notes

1. Department of the Army, AR 165-1, 2015, 5-6.

2. Parker C. Thompson, From Its European Antecedents to 1791: The 

United States Army Chaplaincy, Vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of 

Chaplains, Department of the Army, 1978), xi.

3. Thompson, From Its European Antecedents to 1791, xi.

4. Encyclopedia Britannica, “chaplain,” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/106107/chaplain (accessed 16 February 2014); Douglas Harper, 

s.v. “chapel,” Online Etymology Dictionary, http://www. etymonline.com/index.

php?term=chapel&allowed_in_frame=0 (accessed 16 February 2014).

5. Department of the Army, Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy (Washington DC: Office of the Chief of Chaplains, Department of the Army, 2004), 1.

6. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “chaplain,” 27.

7. Encyclopedia Britannica, “chaplain.” 

8. Thompson, From Its European Antecedents to 1791, xii-xiii.

9. Thompson, From Its European Antecedents to 1791, xiii.

10. Thompson, From Its European Antecedents to 1791, xvii.

11. Department of the Army, Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy, 2.

12. Department of the Army, Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy, 4.

13. Department of the Army, Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy, 8.

14. Department of the Army, Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy, 9.

15. Department of the Army, Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy, 10.

16. Department of the Army, Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy, 11.

17. Although initially established in 1918, the school was deactivated after 

the war and then reactivated two years later. It was again deactivated in 1928 

and reactivated after the bombing of Pearl Harbor early in 1942.

18. Department of the Army, Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy, 17-21.

19. Rodger R. Venzke, Confidence in Battle, Inspiration in Peace: The 

United States Army Chaplaincy, 1945-1975, Vol. V (Washington, DC: Office of 

the Chief of Chaplains, Department of the Army, 1977), 158.

20.Venzke, Confidence in Battle, Inspiration in Peace, 158.

21. Department of the Army, Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy, 27-40.

22. United States Army Chaplain Center and School, Official Chaplain 

History.

23. Department of the Army, AR 165-1, 2015, 7.

24. Title 10, United States Code, Armed Forces, 1714.

25. Title 10, United States Code, Armed Forces, 1730.

26. Title 10, United States Code, Armed Forces, 1732.

27. Department of Defense, Department of Defense Directive 1304.19, 

Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments, (11 June 2004), http://

www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130419p.pdf (accessed 3 April 2014), 2.

28. Department of the Army, Field Manual 1-05, Religious Support (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2012), 1-2.

29. US Constitution, Amendment 1.
29

30. Department of the Army, AR 165-1, 2015, 6-8.

31. Department of the Army, AR 165-1, 2015, 45.

32. Department of the Army, AR 165-1, 2015, 45.

33. US Army Chaplain Corps, “US Army Corps Chaplain History,” Chapnet, http://chapnet.chaplaincorps.net/index.php/about-2/history/ (accessed 3 

April 2014).

31

Chapter 5

The Atheist Chaplain Debate: Support and Opposition

Support for Non-Theistic Chaplains in the Army

There are several articles written on the necessity of non-theistic 

chaplains in the military. Most of the articles showing support for such a 

change originate from secular humanist organizations. It is important to 

note that some atheistic and secular humanist groups do not support having any chaplains in the Army, or in any government organization, due to 

the Jeffersonian idea of the separation of church and state. Three primary 

sources argue for non-theistic chaplains in the military.

The first, an article entitled, “Secular Americans Applaud 173 US 

Reps, Stood Up to Anti-Humanist Chaplain Amendment,” was published 

on a Secular Humanist website in 2013 and discussed how 173 members 

of the US House of Representatives opposed an amendment that proposed 

to limit the appointment of non-religious chaplains. The amendment, in 

a 253-173 vote, passed and stipulated that it would “prevent funds from 

being used to appoint chaplains without an endorsing agency.”1

 The article 

suggested both humanist and Buddhist chaplains are considered non-religious and argued that the passing of this amendment also affected the 

ability to have Buddhist military chaplains. (The Army had appointed legitimately endorsed Buddhist chaplains already, so it is unclear why this 

article claims that Buddhists are without an endorsing agency.) The article went on to quote the Executive Director for the Secular Coalition for 

America, Edwina Rogers, who said the vote, “demonstrates a fast-growing 

consensus in recognizing not only the importance of Humanist chaplains 

but equal rights for all military members regardless of religious belief.”2

The article credited Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) with introducing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to allow non-theistic chaplains in the US Armed Forces. Rep. Polis is quoted 

as saying, “Almost a quarter of men and women in the armed services 

either have no religion or are non-believers, yet there are currently no 

chaplains representative of this community.”3

 This quote from Rep. Polis 

is the primary argument from many secular humanist groups who say that 

the non-religious community should be represented in the Chaplain Corps, 

but is presently not represented at all. Edwina Rogers said, “Religious 

chaplains are ill equipped to handle the problems of nontheistic service 

members.”4
32

The second source is a 2013 article written by Hemant Mehta, chair 

of Foundation Beyond Belief and author of The Young Atheist’s Survival 

Guide. Mehta contributes to “The Friendly Atheist” blog and wrote an article on Patheos.com, a website dedicated to engaging in a global dialogue 

about religion and spirituality. The article, “House Votes Down Amendment Allowing Non-religious Military Chaplains, but 150 Democrats Voted for It,” as with the previous mentioned article, also addresses the issue 

of supporting non-religious chaplains in the military. Mehta credits House 

Representative Rob Andrews (D-NJ) as proposing the following amendment:

The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the appointment, as 

officers in the Chaplain Corps of the Armed Forces, of persons 

who are certified or ordained by non-theistic organizations and 

institutions, such as humanist, ethical culturalist, or atheist.5

This amendment was presented prior to the amendment presented by 

Rep. Polis. Only 150 democrats supported this proposal. An additional 

twenty-three democrats supported the second effort showing an increase 

in support for non-religious chaplains in the Armed Forces. Mehta suggested the definition of the “chaplain” be changed. He explained that a 

chaplain does nothing that a Humanist could not do “in an analogous way” 

such as holding weekly services and burials. He said they would not pray 

to a fictional god, but that a chaplain’s job is to comfort and counsel, and 

atheists deserve to have that same opportunity as everyone else.6 In essence, this article says that non-religious chaplains can do everything that 

a religious chaplain can do – except pray.

The third source, and one of the most comprehensive articles on the 

topic, came from Jason Torpy, the President of the Military Association 

of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF). The 2013 article, “Playing Favorites: What Beliefs Should Chaplains Support?” covers the majority of issues surrounding the question of whether or not the Army should appoint 

atheist chaplains. The primary concerns Torpy addressed are the role of 

the chaplain, defining the scope of the Chaplaincy, the IRS definition of 

“church,” who benefits from chaplain services, the changing identity of 

the Chaplaincy, chaplain endorsing qualifications, and the inconsistency 

within the Chaplain Corps regarding the non-theistic population. 

As the title suggests, one of the primary concerns pro-humanist 

chaplain groups have with the Army Chaplaincy in its current form is that 

there does not seem to be a uniform understanding on whom chaplains 

should serve. It also suggests a discrepancy between what chaplain services 
33

should include or exclude. Torpy explained the role of the Chaplaincy 

from his perspective as providing “care and counseling, free exercise, 

and establishment clause responsibilities.”7

 He explains that the scope of 

the Chaplaincy is changing and should become more relevant to meet the 

needs of the growing humanist, agnostic, and atheist population. 

In the article, Torpy discussed a conversation he had with a military 

chaplain who could not give a clear definition of the word “religion.” 

However, he quoted an Equal Opportunity regulation definition from the 

Department of Defense simply as “deeply-held beliefs.”8

 He made the 

point that defining such terms as “religion” or “spirituality” is not the heart 

of the issue, but contended rather that the focus should be on who actually benefits from chaplain support. He described two categories as the 

in-crowd, or those who reap all the benefits chaplains provide, and the 

out-crowd, or those whose beliefs are not accepted and often completely 

unrecognized. This variance of who is “in” leads to what Torpy considers 

an inconsistency within the Chaplain Corps. He argued that some chaplains willingly provide care and refer their professing atheist Soldiers to 

secular humanist organizations for the purpose of like-minded support. 

Other chaplains, he contended, would simply not minister to an unbelieving Soldier. Furthermore, he argued that unless one professes a belief in 

some form of supernatural power, the benefits of the Chaplaincy are not 

extended to that individual. 

Torpy further explains that the IRS definition of “church” or religious 

group has already been appointed to non-theistic groups which possess 

deeply held beliefs and obtain a tax exempt 501(c)3 non-profit status. 

Therefore, if the government recognizes the group as a legitimate “religious” group, then the military should recognize it as well. The bottom 

line for Torpy is that the military Chaplaincy needs to change in order to 

accommodate a growing non-theistic population. There are several other 

articles that support the idea of having non-religious chaplains in the military, including many well-argued articles by Torpy that can be accessed 

on the MAAF website. 

Opposition against Non-Theistic Chaplains in the Army

There are also several people and organizations that take the opposite 

view, arguing against non-theist or humanist chaplains in the Armed Forces. The first article comes from the Executive Director of the Council for 

Secular Humanism, Tom Flynn.

In the editorial, “Humanist Chaplains in the Military: A Bridge Too 

Close?” from the October/November 2011 issue of the Secular Humanist 
34

magazine Free Inquiry, Flynn argued that secular humanists should not 

be chaplains in the military. He asserted that military chaplains perform 

outside of their prescribed capabilities by conducting services unrelated 

to religion, which results in their “obligations to provide secular, scientific mental-health support.”9

 He argued that chaplains should not be gatekeepers for such important services not involving religion, saying “They 

should perform sacerdotal functions and nothing else.”10 Flynn went on to 

argue that non-religious personnel should have an opportunity to visit a 

scientific mental-health practitioner without the possibility of adverse actions on one’s career. Presently, he says, chaplains are the only confidential 

resource for service members who do not want a record of their visit to a 

counselor, which he also asserts is a violation of the separation of church 

and state.11

The other problem Flynn has with the idea of a humanist Chaplaincy 

is that he believes it portrays a false perception that resembles just another 

“religious” category, which is antithetical to an atheistic mindset. He disagreed with Jason Torpy, who said that humanism fills a role for atheists 

similarly to how Christianity supports Christians. The problem Flynn has 

with that sentiment is that he does not believe that humanism fills a necessary role, because humanism and atheism are distinct worldviews from 

one another. In other words, humanism does not speak for all atheists, nor 

are all atheists humanists. Therefore, to connect atheists with a specific 

“group” that has psychological needs similar to religious groups, except 

without faith or supernaturalism, is to categorize a “group” of nonbelievers who do not want or need to be categorized as having similar needs to 

religious groups. 

Instead of campaigning for what he calls an “oxymoronic humanist/

atheist Chaplaincy” in the military, Flynn suggests exempting nonreligious 

service members from required interaction with chaplains and supports 

instituting a confidential path to counseling that bypasses the chaplain altogether. He concluded the article by saying, “[Secular humanists] reject 

religion as a category and take pride in having crafted a way to live without religion. . . People who reject religion as a category have no business 

becoming chaplains. If we succeed in doing so, we should not be surprised 

if many in the larger culture find our claims to live without religion ringing 

hollow.”12 Although for different reasons, Flynn is not alone in his stance 

against humanist chaplains in the military.

A 2013 press release issued by the Catholic League for Religious and 

Civil Rights (CLRCR) also disagreed with the demands to employ atheist 

chaplains. It referenced the proposed National Defense Authorization Act, 
35

mentioned earlier in this chapter, to fund atheist chaplains in the armed 

forces. The press release directly addressed Jason Torpy of the Military 

Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, by crediting his organization as 

a primary catalyst for the atheist chaplain movement. The CLRCR contended that Torpy claims it is unfair that Christians have chaplains but 

atheists do not. The press release offered an analogy by saying, “it is true 

that throughout the nation, atheists have no chaplains; it is also true that 

vegetarians have no butchers.”13 The statement argued against Torpy’s alleged assertion that 40,000 atheists in the armed forces need atheist chaplain support. The CLRCR claimed that the Department of Defense lists 

only 9,400 atheist or agnostic service members out of the 1.4 million active duty personnel. Furthermore, the CLRCR suggested that the goal of 

MAAF is not to have atheist chaplains but rather to “censor the public 

expression of religion, especially Christianity” and that this movement is 

just a backdoor ploy to continue a war on Christianity.14

In a 2013 article from Townhall Magazine regarding the 23 July 2013 

bipartisan approved amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, columnist Caleb Dalton argued in support of the amendment, 

saying chaplains indeed should be religious.15 The conservative news and 

opinion magazine article entitled “Square Circles, Atheist Chaplains,” 

focused on the assertion that the primary role of a chaplain is religious 

in nature. Dalton supported his claim by referencing a dictionary definition of the term “chaplain” and by quoting the Army Chaplaincy motto, 

Pro Deo et Patria, translated as “For God and Country.”16 He continued 

by arguing against the request of Jason Heap, who applied to become a 

humanist chaplain in the US Navy. Dalton claimed that a non-religious 

chaplain could not offer a prayer to a dying service member, but that a 

religious chaplain could minister effectively to a non-religious person. He 

quoted US Representative and Air Force Chaplain Doug Collins who said 

in a house debate, “if a chaplain is doing their job right, then all feel welcome.”17 Mr. Dalton contended that an atheist would only partially be able 

to fulfill the role as a chaplain, because he or she would not be able to provide any religious ministries. Whereas religious chaplains are capable of 

performing secondary roles of counseling, grief care, and moral guidance, 

an atheist “simply cannot offer the religious services required of a chaplain 

anymore [sic] than a square can declare itself to be circle.”18

Finally, one of the most outspoken and well-developed arguments 

against the issue of atheists in the military comes from the Winter 2014 

issue of the University of San Francisco Law Review. The author, Antony 

Barone Kolenc, drew conclusions from a legal perspective by using the 
36

US Constitution as the foundation for his argument. The article provides 

an in-depth look at the First Amendment and how religion plays into this 

debate. The 62 page article touches on many issues also covered in this 

book, and one issue that stands out is the use of a narrow definition of 

religion. Kolenc wrote, 

if religion can no longer be distinguished from nonreligion, then the 

Religion Clauses would seem to protect nothing special. Using a 

narrower definition of religion strikes the proper balance by taking 

into account the religious diversity of the modern world while also 

resisting the temptation to totally redefine constitutional terms.19

The article concludes with a recommendation for the availability of humanist and existential counseling, but outside of the Chaplain Corps.

Clearly, there is a disagreement as to whether the Army needs atheist 

chaplains to meet the needs of atheist and other non-religious Soldiers. 

Noticeably, a discrepancy exists between the recommendation for NTLS 

Humanist chaplains to minister only to the “non-theistic religious” population or everyone who considers themselves as non-religious. There is 

also a disagreement as to the genuine reason why atheists want to become 

chaplains. Some believe the reason is to provide genuine support for the 

non-religious and their life stance concerns. Others believe the goal of 

these atheist groups is to “invade” the Chaplaincy in order to secularize 

the Chaplain Corps and the Army altogether. The next chapter looks at 

what twelve prominent leaders in both the humanist and Army Chaplaincy 

communities have to say about the topic of atheists and religious support. 

The chapter begins with a review of non-theistic demographics, both in the 

military and society as a whole, to discover the current trends and needs 

of this population.
37

Notes

1. Secular Coalition for America, “Secular Americans Applaud 173 US 

Reps, Stood Up to Anti-Humanist Chaplain Amendment,” (24 July 2013) http://

secular.org/news/secular-americans-applaud-173-us-reps-stood-anti-humanist-chaplain-amendment (accessed 3 November 2013).

2. Secular Coalition for America, “Secular Americans Applaud 173 US 

Reps, Stood Up to Anti-Humanist Chaplain Amendment.”

3. Secular Coalition for America, “Secular Americans Applaud 173 US 

Reps, Stood Up to Anti-Humanist Chaplain Amendment.”

4. I Secular Coalition for America, “Secular Americans Applaud 173 US 

Reps, Stood Up to Anti-Humanist Chaplain Amendment.”

5. Hemant Mehta, “House Votes Down Amendment Allowing Non-religious 

Military Chaplains, but 150 Democrats Voted for It,” Patheos, (14 June 2013), 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/14/house-votes-downamendment-allowing-non-religious-military-chaplains-but-150-democrats-voted-for-it/ (accessed 3 November 2013).

6. Mehta, “House Votes Down Amendment Allowing Non-religious Military Chaplains, but 150 Democrats Voted for It.”

7. Jason Torpy, “Playing Favorites: What Beliefs Should Chaplains Support?” (23 April 2012), http://militaryatheists.org/news/2012/04/playing-favorites-what-beliefs-should-chaplains-support/ (accessed 3 November 2013).

8. Torpy, “Playing Favorites: What Beliefs Should Chaplains Support?”

9. Tom Flynn, “Humanist Chaplains in the Military: A Bridge Too Close?” 

Free Inquiry 31, no. 6 (October/November 2011).

10. Flynn, “Humanist Chaplains in the Military: A Bridge Too Close?”

11. Flynn, “Humanist Chaplains in the Military: A Bridge Too Close?”

12. Flynn, “Humanist Chaplains in the Military: A Bridge Too Close?”

13. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, “The Atheist 

‘Chaplains’ Ploy,” Catalyst (September 2013), https://www.catholicleague.org/

the-atheist-chaplains-ploy-2/ (accessed 5 November 2013).

14. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, “The Atheist 

‘Chaplains’ Ploy.”

15. Caleb Dalton, “Square Circles, Atheist Chaplains.” Townhall Magazine, (8 October 2013), http://townhall.com/columnists/calebdalton/2013/10/08/

square-circles-atheist-chaplains-n1719056/page/full (accessed 5 November 

2013).

16. Dalton, “Square Circles, Atheist Chaplains.”

17. Dalton, “Square Circles, Atheist Chaplains.”

18. Dalton, “Square Circles, Atheist Chaplains.”

19. Antony Barone Kolenc, “Not ‘For God and Country:’ Atheist Military 

Chaplains and the Free Exercise Clause.” University of San Francisco Law Review, vol. 48 (Winter 2014): 418. This article was published after the completion 

and acceptance of my Master’s thesis, on which this study is based.

39

Chapter 6

A Growing Non-Theistic Population?

In much of the literature supporting atheist or non-theistic chaplains in 

the military, writers claim one of the main reasons to appoint non-theistic 

chaplains is because of the growth in the atheist, agnostic, and Humanist populations. Additionally, supporters of Humanist chaplains claim that 

much of the population which self identifies as “none” or “no religion in 

particular” is a part of the growing atheist, agnostic, and Humanist demographic. 

According to the Pew Research Center, there has been a 6.7 percent 

increase in the religiously unaffiliated from 2007 to 2014. This population consists of atheists, agnostics, and those who identify with “nothing 

in particular.” The same poll also showed a slight increase in those of 

non-Christian faiths as well as a dramatic 7.8 percent decrease in those 

who describe themselves as Christian.1

 Another Pew Research Center 

study from 2012 found those who identify as “nothing in particular” consist of the religious and non-religious, and the spiritual and non-spiritual. 

Pew research surveys showed that 81 percent of the “nothing in particular” 

or “nones” say they believe in God or a universal spirit.2

 Therefore, even 

though the “nones” demographic is on the rise, the data does not prove that 

“nones” are increasingly becoming non-theistic, but it does show they are 

becoming less Christian.

Moreover, another set of data shows that 68 percent of the religiously 

unaffiliated (agnostics, atheists, and “nones”) recognizes the importance 

of belonging to a community that shares similar values and beliefs. So 

even though the religiously unaffiliated may not claim any form of organized religion, there appears to be a recognition that shared community is 

somewhat or very important.

After reviewing data from these surveys, one might conclude that 

many of the religiously unaffiliated would be interested in gathering as a 

community to discuss significant life events with those who share similar 

values and beliefs. This confirms Humanist groups’ assertions that there 

is a growing desire for a platform to develop and share values and beliefs. 

But are these values and beliefs religious or just philosophical?

Trends in the military often reflect trends in society. However, the statistics available from the Office of Army Demographics paint a different 

picture (see Figure 2 on the next page). Since 2004, the increase in the 

atheist population was 0.3 percent. The “nones” or what the Army refers 
40

Figure 2: Percentage change in active duty Army religious preferences by faith 

group, 2004-2013. Source: Defense Manpower Data Center West, Office of 

Army Demographics.

to as “No Religious Preference” (NRP) actually dropped 1.3 percent over 

the past ten years. The most significant changes include an increase in the 

Protestant population by 3.2 percent, a decrease in active duty Catholics 

by 1.9 percent, and the NRP decrease already mentioned by 1.3 percent. 

A more detailed review of the religious affiliation breakdown showed 

zero agnostics in the Active Army for 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2013. The 

numbers for agnostics in the Army Reserves also showed zero for each 

year researched. The National Guard however, lists 72 agnostics for 2004, 

109 in 2007, 258 in 2010, and 399 for 2013. Agnostic was not listed as a 

category in 2001 for any Army components. It is unclear why only the National Guard presented statistics for agnostics. The absence of this statistic reveals a possible flaw in collecting accurate religious affiliation data, 

which could be a topic for future research but will not be addressed in this 

work. 

Regardless of whether or not Soldiers listed their preferences truthfully, and regardless of whether or not the Army’s procedure of collecting 

the data was able to represent the population accurately, the fact remains 

that a percentage of the population is indeed non-theistic. Although it is 

a small percentage, a population of non-theists definitely exists in the US 

Army. Hence, NTLS Humanist groups, like MAAF, believe all military 

departments should equally support all religious preferences, to include 

the non-religious population, with chaplains.
41

According to research conducted by the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers in 2012, demographics show disproportionate numbers of chaplains relative to the religious preferences of the overall DoD 

population for all the Military Departments. The data reveals a significantly high number of evangelical chaplains in relation to the general population of evangelicals. The data also reveals an obvious result of zero chaplains in relation to the general population of secular and atheist personnel 

(see Figure 3). 

The MAAF and other Humanists want chaplain support for the Humanists in the Army, but as both Figures 2 and 3 suggest, there is no data 

available about the current Humanist population in the Army, because neiFigure 3: MAAF research on proportion of DoD chaplain support in relation to 

the DoD population, 2012. Source: Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, “Military Religious Demographics,” http://militaryatheists.org/demographics/ (accessed 8 April 2014). 
42

ther the Army nor the DoD currently tracks Humanism as a religion. To 

remedy this issue, an officer submitted a request to the Army to recognize 

Humanism as a religious preference for official Army records.3

 In April 

2014, the Army approved the request. Therefore, the only non-theistic 

data available for the MAAF 2012 study was the atheist, agnostic, and no 

preference populations.4

 In the absence of any Humanist data, it appears 

that the MAAF 2012 study focuses on the fact that the non-religious and 

atheist population have no chaplain representation, which seems to indicate a desire to represent more than just the NTLS Humanist population 

with Humanist chaplain support. Research on this issue reveals differing 

perspectives on the need for and efficacy of Humanist chaplains.

The results of the interviews conducted for this research and the resulting dialogue allowed all twelve members of the process to fully understand the positions of both those who support and oppose Humanist 

chaplains in the Army. The main point for those who support Humanist 

chaplains is a desire for equal representation and diversity in the Army 

Chaplaincy. The major opposition to Humanist chaplains is the atheistic 

nature of NTLS Humanism. Opponents of Humanist chaplains ask, “How 

can an atheist serve as a chaplain and religious leader to a unit full of both 

religious and non-religious individuals?” Supporters of Humanist chaplains would respond, “Just like the Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist chaplains; we would perform or provide.” “And what exactly is it that you 

would perform?” asks the opponent. Thus begins the dialogue. 
43

Notes

1. Pew Research Center, “America’s Changing Religious Landscape,” (12 

May 2015), http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ (accessed 7 September 2015).

2. Pew Research Center, Religion and Public Life Project, 28 June–9 July 

2012, Q53-54, “‘Nones’ on the Rise,” http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/

nones-on-the-rise-religion/ (accessed 4 April 2014).

3. In addition to submitting a request to become a DFGL for secular humanism, MAJ Ray Bradley also submitted a request to the Army to recognize 

Humanism as a religious preference on official military records. During the 

interview process for this research, MAJ Bradley mentioned that he received an 

email from The Chief of Chaplains Office informing him that Humanism would 

be an approved religious preference as of April 2014.

4. The no preference population, like the Pew research, most likely includes 

both theistic and non-theistic personnel.

45

Chapter 7

How Would Atheists Provide Religious Support?

The dialogue between the six humanists and six chaplains conducted 

for this study exposed the main issues preventing atheists from serving 

as Army chaplains and revealed the benefits Humanist chaplains would 

bring to the Army. While most agreed that Humanists, atheists, agnostics, 

and other non-religious personnel should have a place to gather to build 

community, there was disagreement regarding the religious aspects and 

purpose of this community and whether or not it would fall under the purview of the Chaplaincy. The discussion led to another question of whether or not non-theistic groups should have the same benefits as currently 

approved religious groups. Then one could ask if the non-theistic group 

would actually be considered a religious group, or would it more resemble 

a group or society like the Freemasons, the Kiwanis Club, or the Knights 

of Columbus? The interviews and resulting dialogue provided a starting 

point to find answers to these debatable questions. We begin with a question that lies at the heart of the matter.

How Can Non-Theistic Humanists Meet the Religious Needs of the 

Traditionally Theistic Religious Population?

A primary issue that arose throughout the interview process, and during 

informal discussions about the topic, was the ability and willingness of an 

atheist or agnostic to provide religious support to people who believe in 

God. Of the multitude of reasons for which Soldiers visit a chaplain, the 

most common include requests for counseling, prayer, and blessings. An 

additional religious expectation comes from the commander when he or 

she requests a ceremonial invocation. Three interview questions addressed 

how a Humanist chaplain would provide the religiously specific requests 

for prayer, blessings, and an invocation. 

Responding to a Request for Prayer

“If a dying soldier asked for prayer, how would a Humanist chaplain 

respond?” This interview question garnered the most diverse responses 

from the Humanist participants. The most commonly agreed upon response was that a Humanist would not pray but would rather help guide 

the Soldier to pray according to his or her particular religion. Jason Torpy, 

president of the MAAF, suggested that a Humanist chaplain would be expected “to be as ready as any Buddhist or Mormon is to pray with any 

Muslim or Jew.”1

 Since NTLS Humanists do not believe in praying to a 

God or gods, Jason Heap said, 
46

it would be inauthentic to the Humanist chaplain to be praying 

something anyway, and the last thing I’d hope the non-Humanist 

would see is the Humanist being false or engaging in “tokenism” 

as a form of “religious placebo.”2

Therefore, to be authentically Humanist, another common response to 

the dying Soldier who asks for prayer was to find someone else who could 

pray with that Soldier. This is what AR 165-1 and FM 1-05 state as “providing” religious support rather than “performing” the religious practice. 

The bottom line here is that it depends on the person and how comfortable he or she would feel in that situation. One Humanist may offer 

a prayer because it would be about the Soldier and helping him or her 

through their suffering. This response would be similar to a Christian 

choosing whether or not to recite a Muslim Kalimah, pray a Hindu prayer, 

or chant something that they do not believe. They may choose to put their 

religious convictions aside to minister to the person who is dying and suffering according to her or his faith tradition. To some it may appear as a 

blatant compromise, and to others it is an act of placing the needs of the 

Soldier ahead of one’s own convictions. 

Responding to a Request for a Blessing

A request for a blessing is not as acute as a dying Soldier’s request 

for prayer, but it is a common religious request by Soldiers looking to 

have their home, an artifact, an impending operation, or meal blessed by 

God. Soldiers often ask for blessings for safety prior to conducting patrols. 

They may ask the chaplain to bless a memento or religious symbol while 

deployed in a combat zone. Oftentimes Catholic Soldiers ask for blessings 

in the absence of a Catholic priest and do not seem to mind if the chaplain 

who gives the blessing is not Catholic, as long as the blessing has a connection to the Divine. Because this is a common religious practice in the 

Army, the Humanists were asked, “How would a Humanist chaplain give 

a blessing?”

The answer to this question from five of the humanists can be summarized in the words of Jason Heap: “They wouldn’t,” but he immediately 

added that he would find someone who could. Harvard Humanist Chaplain 

Greg Epstein also stated that he would first find someone to conduct the 

blessing. If that was not possible, he along with the majority of the group 

suggested that they would take the religious meaning out of it and offer 

a secular option instead. Additional responses included wishing people 

good luck rather than giving a blessing and to simply “opt out” if giving a 

blessing would violate their conscience. 
47

As with the response to a request for prayer, the Humanist chaplain 

could not “perform” a religious blessing; they would have to “provide” the 

religious support by finding another chaplain who could perform the religious act. If the population wanted words of inspiration, or if they wanted 

to discuss the philosophical and scientific meanings of objects and experiences, a Humanist chaplain could perform with success. However, it appears that the Humanist would have to locate another chaplain to conduct 

a religious blessing. An invocation however, is a different matter and more 

in line with the practice of NTLS Humanism.

Conducting an Invocation

The purpose of an invocation traditionally has been to invoke the presence of God on an event or ceremony, hence the term “invocation.” Yet 

as Chaplain Epstein pointed out in his ministry at Harvard, he does invocations for interfaith groups all the time. Invocations have often been a 

source of tension in the Army as people have been chided for praying in 

Jesus’ name or for being too denominational in their prayer. According 

to Epstein, he has received nothing but gratitude for the inclusive way he 

offers an invocation. He obviously does not invoke the presence of God, 

but he feels that the purpose of an invocation is to offer inspiration. In 

responding to the question, “How would a Humanist chaplain conduct an 

invocation?” Chaplain Epstein passionately responded, 

when you look around at a crowd of young Americans, and you 

know there are Christians, there are Jews, there are Buddhists, 

there are Hindus, there are Muslims, there are agnostics, there are 

atheists, and humanists and spiritual people. . . who is going to get 

up in front of all these people and say something that’s going to 

help us all feel good, to feel calm, to feel reflective, to feel a sense 

of meaning and purpose? I would suggest that a Humanist, by 

saying something that acknowledges the difference between the 

people, but called on their common humanity, may be able to do 

that particular task just as well as anyone in the world.3

Epstein explained that he conducts invocations for diverse audiences in 

many ways such as through the use of poetry, meaningful music, or silent 

reflection. He says a Humanist chaplain, “can help a diverse group of people to reflect and be inspired by that which is most important to them.”4

The traditional Army invocation may seem anachronistic to some, but 

as the meaning of words change, the term invocation may evolve into 

simply offering words of inspiration (if it has not done so already). Who 

would take issue with inspiration? Esprit de corps is a quality the Army 
48

community seeks, and if a chaplain can bring everyone together by omitting religious, exclusive words and replacing them with words of inclusive 

inspiration, it would appear to be a win-win for all. 

The only problem is that an invocation is religious, and at the present time, most Soldiers still appreciate when a chaplain acknowledges the 

presence and blessing of God on their lives. The non-religious may not be 

able to “opt out” of having to listen to the prayer, but if there is no God, 

then certainly there is no fear of God actually showing up at the event. 

A humanitarian or dignified response would not be to restrict a religious 

invocation but rather to allow those who desire God’s presence to listen to 

a forty-five second prayer. At the rate that society is changing, the invocation will probably become a distant memory because it offends those who 

do not believe. Some atheists would rather that religious people practice 

atheism during a ceremony. The question then becomes, who would be 

more offended? The non-religious who have to listen to a forty-five second prayer or the religious who would not enjoy their religious freedom to 

invoke the presence of God? If history is any gauge, it will most likely be 

the former. Hence, Epstein may have it right with his all-inclusive inspirational “invocation.” If this becomes the norm, then word “invocation” will 

be redefined right along with the word “religion,” which would therefore 

include Humanism as a religion.
49

Notes

1. Jason Torpy, written answers to author in response to interview questions, 

4 February 2014.

2. Jason Heap, written answers to author in response to interview questions, 

26 February 2014.

3. Chaplain Greg Epstein, telephonic interview by author, 14 March 2014.

4. Chaplain Greg Epstein, telephonic interview by author, 14 March 2014.

51

Chapter 8

Is Humanism a Religion?

In order to answer this question, it is imperative to understand the Humanist population. Therefore, the question, “What are the religious needs 

of the non-theistic population?” will be the starting point to answer the 

greater question of whether or not Humanism is a religion. To begin answering this question, the humanist interview responses were analyzed to 

determine what aspects of NTLS Humanism are religious. As one might 

imagine, this proved to be the most controversial aspect of the discussion 

regarding whether or not the Army should have atheist chaplains. Disagreements on the definition of religion, the interpretation of the Constitution, and whether or not Humanism or humanism is a religion among the 

Humanist community led to a web of controversy begging to be untangled. 

From a NTLS Humanist perspective, it may appear that the questions, “What are the religious or life stance requirements of Humanism?” 

and “What is sacred about Humanism?” are trick questions to reveal the 

non-religiousness of Humanism. On the contrary, the questions were designed to exegete the religious aspects of Humanism in order to juxtapose 

the responses with the Constitutional First Amendment, federal law, and 

DoD policy regarding the purpose of the Chaplaincy. 

As discussed in Chapter 4, the Constitution guarantees that Congress 

will not pass any laws to establish a religion or to prohibit its free exercise.1

 Federal law requires chaplains to hold appropriate religious services 

and to perform appropriate religious burial services. Neither the Constitution nor the United States Code (USC) defines exactly what is considered 

a religious service or religious burial service. 

For the NTLS Humanist, regular gatherings and a burial are considered religious, because they involve sincerely held beliefs pertaining to the 

meaning and purpose of life. The gatherings and ceremonies that NTLS 

Humanists conduct are not simply like a club that gathers to discuss books, 

play chess, or study physics. They consider events such as a baby-naming ceremony or a wedding as religious, because they deal with one’s life 

stance and the deeper meanings of how one develops values and contributes to humanity for good – good without God or gods. NTLS Humanists 

claim that just because people have a life stance that omits a God or gods, 

they should not be excluded as non-religious. Rather, they consider their 

beliefs to be non-theistic religious beliefs, and therefore are protected under the Constitution and should be able serve as chaplains under Title 10 of 
52

the USC. So what exactly are the religious practices, or life stance requirements, that need protection under the First Amendment? What is sacred 

or religious about NTLS Humanism that needs religious support? These 

were some of the questions asked of the humanists. The answers to these 

questions revolved around human dignity and the value of human life.

The Humanist applicant for the Navy Chaplaincy, Jason Heap, directed his response toward the Humanist Manifesto(s) (see Appendix E 

for the most recent Manifesto), and suggested there are no requirements, 

but rather commonly held views. He explained that the Manifesto is open 

to debate, which means that the core values of Humanism continuously 

evolve as human knowledge and understanding of the world evolves. He 

explained that “religion” is a human construct to talk about what is commonly understood as “divine.”2

Secular Humanist DFGL applicant Major Ray Bradley described life 

stance requirements as being determined by each person individually. 

What is considered a requirement for one person may not be a requirement 

for another, and like Heap, MAJ Bradley referred to the Humanist Manifesto as a guide. He clarified, “that the Manifesto is not a list of what Humanists must believe, but is a consensus of what Humanists do believe.”3

Jason Torpy explained that the requirements of Humanism are 

non-dogmatic and therefore “requirements” is not the right term to use 

when discussing the religious aspects of Humanism.4

 He offered “human 

flourishing” as the ultimate core value for Humanists, and mentioned that 

human flourishing is “done from a nontheistic and naturalistic world view 

of scientific naturalism.”5

 He also added “a skeptical approach to knowledge” as a primary tenet of Humanism, saying that a standard of evidence 

is applied before accepting a hypothesis.6

 To illustrate, he provided the 

following: 

For example, god doesn’t exist until such time as sufficient 

evidence is provided, or what happened before the big bang is 

unknown and we would not say god did it simply to fill in the 

unanswered question.7

Torpy also lists “ethical and meaningful life” as a key tenet of Humanism 

as well as possessing a “questioning, progressive philosophy.”8

Regarding the question about what Humanists consider sacred, they 

collectively remarked that human life is the most “sacred” aspect of Humanism. However, all the humanists agreed that the term “sacred” has no 

place in the world of Humanism. Chaplain Erwin Kamp, the Dutch Navy 

Humanist Chaplain, prefers the term “imprescriptible” to “sacred.”9

 He 
53

says our human dignity is imprescriptible. When asked about the religious 

practices for which Humanists want protection under the First Amendment, Greg Epstein most likely summed it up for all humanists when he 

said he wants to have the ability to openly discuss his religious beliefs and 

to gather with like-minded people. He said that if either of those were ever 

taken away that it “would destroy my freedom to be who I am and who I 

want to be.”10

On the Harvard Humanist website, the Humanist Hub, a calendar of 

events shows an event on 13 January 2016 titled, “Harry Potter as a Sacred 

Text (Reading Group).” The event details pose the question, “What if we 

read the books we love as if they were sacred texts?”11 This event clearly 

reveals that Humanists decide for themselves, individually, as to what is 

“sacred” or as to what things are important in life.

Gathering with like-minded people and having the freedom to openly 

discuss religious beliefs, to include what struck them about a Harry Potter 

book – these are the religious freedoms Humanists want protected under 

the First Amendment. These are also the needs for which Humanists want 

chaplain support. A Humanist Chaplain could help other Humanists develop ethical values and beliefs while also providing them a place to foster 

connections and build community with like-minded individuals. Just as 

the traditionally religious Soldiers have a confidential chaplain to whom 

they can discuss their issues, Humanists also want a confidential chaplain 

with whom they can discuss their significant life issues. There already 

are non-theistic counselors such as Military and Family Life Consultants (MFLC), social workers, and psychologists with whom non-theistic 

Soldiers can visit. These counselors are available to all Soldiers, but the 

problem with visiting these counselors is that the visit is not completely 

confidential. While the MFLC does not keep written records of counseling 

sessions, all of these counselors are mandated reporters – meaning that that 

the counselor would have to file a report if a counselee chose to disclose 

any indicators of harming someone to include self-harm. Additionally, the 

counselor may or may not be religious, and even if not, he or she may be 

non-theistic but not humanistic in his or her worldview. NTLS Humanists 

want to be able to counsel with another NTLS Humanist.

A chaplain who served at the Fort Leavenworth Joint Regional Correctional Facility, Chaplain (CPT) Jonathan Fisher, does not necessarily 

view Humanism as a religion, but strongly believes that Humanism, as 

well as other non-religious beliefs, should be treated with the same respect 

as religious beliefs. He says that having a Humanist chaplain in the Army 

today 
54

would help current Army chaplains understand how to better meet 

the needs of their non-religious/humanist, atheist, agnostic and 

other Soldiers/families by providing an internal subject matter 

expert resource.12

As a chaplain who worked with a literal captive audience, Chaplain Fisher 

recognizes that non-religious inmates cannot simply gather together and 

discuss their beliefs and values at will. Someone needs to facilitate that 

discussion, and he was happy to do it. In fact, he facilitated a weekly “Men 

of Reason” meeting which was open to everyone. Non-religious inmates 

could gather together to discuss their stresses, challenges, and life issues 

with like-minded individuals. A Humanist chaplain, according to Fisher, 

would also serve as that like-minded confidential counselor.

Having a like-minded counselor with whom to share life’s stresses and 

challenges may be necessary, but according to some of the other chaplain 

interview responses, deeply held Humanistic beliefs are not considered 

religious and therefore do not fall under the First Amendment or bounds 

of the Army Chaplaincy. The term “religion” in their minds holds a supernatural, metaphysical, divine, or other transcendental meaning, not simply 

“sincerely or deeply held beliefs.” Although commanders must accommodate such beliefs, they are not necessarily considered religious.13

The World Religions Chaplain at the Fort Leavenworth Command and 

General Staff College, Chaplain (MAJ) Seth George, agrees that confidential counseling is important to Soldiers. However, he explained, 

The soldier’s right to religious freedom does not revolve around 

rights to counsel and comfort (though we try to provide this as 

part of our calling), nor is it a right of free speech or assembly 

as civilians have and enjoy. It is a right to the free expression of 

religion, which is both public and private worship with a Rabbi/

Imam/Pastor/Priest etc.14

Chaplain George agrees that Humanists should be able to gather and build 

community, but not under the banner of religion. As discussed in Chapter 

4, the US Code specifically states that the chaplain’s primary responsibility is to hold weekly services.

The Army’s first Buddhist Chaplain, Chaplain (CPT) Thomas Dyer 

III, has much to say about religion, especially considering that many Humanists compare their non-theistic beliefs to the non-theistic aspects of 

Buddhism. Similarly to Chaplain George, Chaplain Dyer believes Humanist groups should have protection and be able to meet for social forming 

and values development but not under a “religious Corps.” He states, 
55

The practice and teaching of Religion should address issues of 

the after-life. For example Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have 

salvation, Buddhism has enlightenment, Hinduism has absorption, 

and Earth Center has union with the elements.15

Not all Buddhists are non-theistic; some do recognize a divine being or 

gods. For something to be called a religion, Dyer believes it should recognize more than simply science and reason. Neither George nor Dyer view 

Humanism as a religion, and for that matter neither do some humanists.

In September 2013, the Yale Chaplain’s Office denied the Yale Humanist Community’s application for membership in the Yale Religious 

Ministries. With Humanist Chaplaincies already at Harvard and Stanford, 

it seems strange that this Ivy League school denied the application. In an 

article on the Religious News Service website, the reason cited for rejection was because the group is “explicitly nonreligious.”16 Meghan Hamilton, an executive assistant for the American Humanist Association (AHA), 

agrees with this ruling saying, 

As humanists, atheists, agnostics, and/or non-believers, we have 

identified ourselves as possessing a lack of religious belief, no 

organization of religion, and we are not now, nor have ever 

been recognized by the religious community as a religious 

group; primarily because we are not religious, and do not seek 

to establish humanism as a religion. . . as we have established 

ourselves as promoters of social progression, the religious realm 

is not that place. Joining a ministry, a community of people where 

religious belief is required for membership, is counterproductive 

to our cause, which is ultimately exemplifying that one can be 

good without a god.17

Hamilton continues her disagreement by questioning why the Yale Humanist Community chose the religious community with which to associate 

rather than a Political, Cultural, or Community group, citing the religious 

choice was the most narrow of all choices. Evidently, not all Humanists 

want to be associated with religion or chaplains.

The Harvard Humanist webpage specifically describes their community as non-religious as stated in their mission: “We are a center for humanist life – a nonreligious community committed to the power of connection to help us do good and live well.”18 They purpose to live well using 

reason and dialogue, to determine ethical values, and to help one another 

evolve as they work to improve the world. With events such as book reading groups, guest speakers, comedians, and learning labs to help children 
56

learn how to become moral citizens, the Humanist Hub provides many 

ways for the secular community to connect, grow, and serve. The focus 

clearly is not religious.

To complicate matters even more, the executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, Tom Flynn, explained that he could not answer 

the interview questions as written, because the questions regarding Humanism were posed with a capital ‘H.’ He wrote, 

Within the atheist and humanist movement, Humanism is usually 

capitalized when referring to religious Humanism, the stance that 

views humanism as a religious or quasi-religious commitment. 

This is problematic for two reasons:

1) Most atheists and secular humanists are not religious Humanists, 

but instead believe their life stance falls outside the category of 

religion. Often they view their life stance as an alternative to all 

religions. Across the larger movement, religious Humanists are 

unique in viewing their life stance as religious. 

2) Since much of the controversy over atheists and humanists 

serving as military chaplains has to do with the way that chaplaincy 

is seen as inherently religious, it stands to reason that a Humanist 

who is religious will approach questions of chaplaincy from an 

entirely different direction than a humanist or atheist who is not 

religious.19

Flynn’s clarification on the matter helps the reader understand why 

there is division within the overall humanist community on whether or not 

humanism has a place in a religious Chaplaincy. The complex discussion 

about designating Humanism, secular humanism, or religious humanism 

as a religion makes for a convoluted argument that will not be resolved 

in the course of this study. It suffices to say that the issue is divided even 

within the internal ranks of other humanists. One may argue that Christians disagree on their particular beliefs also, but the difference is that they 

all believe in God, and they do not debate over whether or not the ‘C’ in 

Christian is capitalized. 

The fact that this is a complex issue does not negate the possibility of 

Humanist Army chaplains; it simply means the dialogue needs to continue 

until a qualified candidate meets the DoD policy requirements or Congress 

decides the issue. The religious nature of Humanism is only one factor in 

the discussion. For several of the chaplains interviewed for this project, 

the focus centered not only on the religious aspects of Humanism but also 

the capability of Humanists to serve as religious leaders.
57

Notes

1. US Constitution, Amendment 1.

2. Heap, written interview.

3. MAJ Ray Bradley, written answers to author in response to interview 

questions, 27 February 2014.

4. Torpy, written interview.

5. Torpy, written interview.

6. Torpy, written interview.

7. Torpy, written interview.

8. Torpy, written interview.

9. Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Erwin Kamp, written answers to author in response to 

interview questions, 6 March 2014.

10. Chaplain Epstein, telephonic interview.

11. The Humanist Hub, “Upcoming Events,” accessed 10 January 2016, 

http://www.humanisthub.org.

12. Chaplain (CPT) Jonathan Fisher, written answers to author in response 

to interview questions, 15 March 2014.

13. Department of Defense, DoDI 1300.17, dated 22 January 2014.

14. Chaplain (MAJ) Seth George, written answers to author in response to 

interview questions, 27 March 2014.

15. Chaplain (CPT) Thomas Dyer III, telephonic interview with author, 1 

April 2014.

16. Kimberly Winston, “Yale’s humanists lose bid for campus recognition,” Religious News Service, (7 October 2013), http://www.religionnews.

com/2013/10/07/yales-humanists-lose-bid-campus-recognition/ (accessed 17 

April 2014).

17. Meghan Hamilton, “No – A Ministry Community Is Not A Place For 

Humanists,” (17 October 2013), http://www.occuworld.org/news/357908 (accessed 15 April 2014).

18. The Humanist Hub, “About,” http://www.humanisthub.org/about/.

19. Tom Flynn, email to author in response to interview questions, 25 February 2014.

59

Chapter 9

How Can an Atheist Serve as a Religious Leader?

Not only was the issue of asking, “Is Humanism a Religion?” a major 

discussion point in the dialogue, but the strategic look into the future and 

possible consequences of Humanist Army chaplains became another primary issue. Chaplain (COL) Ronald Thomas, the former Combined Arms 

Center Chaplain, and Chaplain (COL) John Read, the Southern Regional 

Medical Command Chaplain, both mentioned the issue of internal and external advisement in their interview responses. A Humanist chaplain could 

provide non-theistic counseling for Soldiers and serve as a Celebrant for 

non-religious weddings and funerals, but what about their ability to advise 

the command?

In addition to the requirement to provide comprehensive religious 

support, DoDD 1304.19 requires chaplains to provide commanders with 

advisement. The directive states that chaplains are 

to advise and assist commanders in the discharge of their 

responsibilities to provide for the free exercise of religion in the 

context of military service as guaranteed by the Constitution. . . 

and to serve as the principal advisors to commanders for all issues 

regarding the impact of religion on military operations.1

In order for the chaplain to provide religious advisement, he or she must 

have knowledge and experience in religion and its environment.

Chaplain Read chose to respond to the interview questions with additional questions that address the heart of religious advisement. He inquired 

as to the basis and foundation on which a Humanist would provide religious advisement. He posed the following questions: 

On or by what authority does one exercise a Humanist vocation? 

Where does the Chaplain Corps go to understand the authority 

by which the Humanist serves? Who is informing the Humanist 

chaplain? Self-informed? What kind of authority does a Humanist 

exercise to facilitate core capabilities (provide and advise)? Only 

personal? Or is he/she one part of a corporate entity? And what 

text or texts serve to identify with the Humanist corporate entity 

and who are the corpus leadership?2

Unfortunately, none of the Humanists chose to respond to any of those 

questions for the overall discussion; although Torpy did offer to discuss 

them in another forum. Chaplain Read’s questions highlight the fact that 
60

the characteristics of religious leadership and professionalism in the military are highly valued aspects of the Army Chaplain Corps – a Corps that 

does not take the responsibility of religious advisement lightly. 

Even without direct responses to Chaplain Read’s questions, it was 

evident that the level of knowledge from religious study is not a casual 

issue for the humanists interviewed for this research. For example, Chaplain Greg Epstein is not only the Vice President of the Harvard Chaplains, 

but he is ordained as a Humanist Rabbi from the International Institute for 

Secular Humanistic Judaism. His ordination was preceded by five years 

of study in both Jerusalem and the United States. He holds a Bachelor 

of Arts in Religion and Chinese and a Master of Arts in Judaic Studies 

from the University of Michigan and has a Masters of Theological Studies 

from the Harvard Divinity School. Chaplain Epstein is also the author of 

the New York Times best-selling book, Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe.

3

 Although the specifics were not answered from Chaplain Read’s questions, one can presume that a Humanist 

Celebrant such as Chaplain Epstein would certainly meet the professional 

and religious requirements to provide religious advisement. However, the 

questions still remain as to what corporate entity and authority or authorities are Humanists responsible and accountable. If everyone can believe 

what they want to believe, individually based on their interpretation of the 

world in which they live, then from where do Humanists build their values 

and ethics? The Humanist Manifesto is a good place to start, but even that 

document is mutable. 

In the answer to the original question, “How can an atheist serve as a 

religious leader?” a Humanist might respond, “the same way a Christian, 

Buddhist, or Muslim would.” The crux of the issue (regardless of denomination) is the reputation and competence of the chaplain to serve as a 

religious leader. An atheist would most likely find it difficult to win acceptance in a predominantly Christian Army, but may in fact provide better 

advisement to her or his commander than some Christian chaplains. The 

bottom line is that it is not impossible for an atheist to serve as a religious 

leader in terms of capability and knowledge, but in today’s Chaplaincy, it 

would most likely be quite difficult until that chaplain could prove him or 

herself as a competent religious advisor. At this particular time in history, 

it would probably take an extremely talented, confident, and charismatic 

atheist to serve as a religious leader in the US Army.

The other issue regarding religious leadership revolves around the 

federal law requiring chaplains to conduct weekly services. If an atheist 

cannot conduct the federally required weekly services, then it would be 
61

difficult to serve as a religious leader regardless of intellect and experience. At least that is how the current policies are written. Policies support 

the law, and the law supports the Constitution. If Humanists want to redefine the purpose and lawful requirements of the Chaplaincy, then they will 

need to go through Congress. The other option is to operate outside of the 

Chaplain Corps.
62

Notes

1. Department of Defense, Department of Defense Directive 1304.19, 

Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments, (11 June 2004), http://

www.dtic. mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130419p.pdf (accessed 3 April 2014), 2.

2. Chaplain (COL) John Read, email to author in response to interview 

questions.

3. Humanist Community at Harvard, “Greg Epstein,” http://harvardhumanist.org/greg-epstein/ (accessed 17 April 2014).
63

Chapter 10

Is the Chaplaincy Responsible for Non-Theistic

Life Stance Groups?

To answer this question, one must first revisit the discussion on the purpose of the Chaplaincy from Chapter 4. The primary purpose for the Chaplain Corps is to provide religious support. The argument about whether or 

not Humanism is a religion and whether or not chaplains should support 

Humanism is not so much the issue but rather, what are the needs of this 

population that is asking for support? The Chaplain Corps does not exist 

for itself. In his final interview statement, Chaplain Thomas pointed out 

that the Corps exists to meet the needs of the Army family, not the needs of 

the chaplains. The Chaplain Corps does not simply look for ways to insert 

itself into the military but rather meets specific needs of the Soldiers whom 

it serves – religious needs. Therefore, if a need to support this NTLS Humanist group presents itself, the Army has a responsibility to respond to 

the request. If the needs are religious, then the Chaplaincy should support 

it, period. If the needs are not religious, then the Army must analyze the 

best proponent for this group.

Both the executive director for the Council for Secular Humanism and 

an executive assistant for the American Humanist Association agree that 

the Chaplaincy is no place for secular humanism. Even though Major Ray 

Bradley applied to be a secular humanist DFGL, he holds to the belief that 

secular humanism is a religion. This discrepancy among humanists makes 

it difficult to decide if secular humanists or religious humanists or Humanists with a capital ‘H’ all want the same basic rights, or if this one particular group – termed specifically for this research as Non-Theistic Life 

Stance Humanists – wants to be part of the Chaplaincy. It may be a moot 

point, but the differences make the discussion very confusing. Secular humanism means one thing to one humanist and something else to another. 

Some want chaplain representation and some absolutely do not. Where do 

we draw the line? How can someone decide if this group is religious even 

though some of them do not want a religious label?

All of the chaplains interviewed agreed that this group which is asking 

for chaplain support deserves a place at the Army table and should have 

some recognized representation. Major Bradley suggested the Army 

recognize this group with an incremental approach: first they should allow 

Soldiers to list Humanist as their religious preference on their professional 

military records, then they should bring on a few Humanist DFGLs, 

and then appoint Humanist chaplains after the culture becomes more 
64

acclimated to Humanism as a religion.1 According to correspondence from 

the Office of the Chief of Chaplains, the first step was approved in April 

2014. The next step is to approve Humanist DRGLs.

When asked if the Army should have Humanist DFGLs, (now termed 

Distinctive Religious Group Leaders or DRGLs as of July 2015), Chaplain (LTC) Doyle Coffman, Deputy Installation Management Command 

Chaplain, commented

Distinctive Faith Group Leaders (DFGLs) are an exception to 

policy when a Chaplain is un-available to perform a particular 

religious or sacramental function of a particular faith group. A 

definition of a DFGL is a non-chaplain religious worship leader. 

Two things have to be addressed: 1) Can the Supreme Court say 

that Secular Humanism is religious and will the laws change to 

remove humanistic thought from being taught in public schools 

as a part of the establishment clause? If not, they cannot be an 

exception to replace an Army Chaplain. 2) The primary function 

of a DFGL is for worship. Humanist DFGLs do not provide 

worship. They will provide instruction in the Humanist Manifesto. 

Again, I think there is a place in the Army for such instruction, but 

not through the Army Chaplaincy that is entrusted to ensure the 

free exercise of religion. I understand that they hold to certain 

humanistic ceremonies but that does not make them religious. The 

Masons have ceremonies that are conducted in their organization 

but do not consider themselves to be religious.2

The same problem arises when considering Humanist DRGLs as with 

the consideration for Humanist chaplains. Furthermore, Chaplain Coffman is correct in saying that the purpose of a DRGL is to provide worship, 

which again supports the federal law in Title 10 of the United States Code. 

The answer remains, if Congress wants to change the law, or if Humanists want to provide weekly services, then there may be an approval for a 

Humanist DRGL. It must be noted that Humanists already provide weekly 

assemblies and have non-theistic or non-religious services that help promote community and strengthen values and human flourishing. However, 

the services do not meet any religious “requirement.” As discussed previously in Chapter 8, Humanists have important beliefs that are manifested 

in the way they choose to live, but there are no religious requirements. As 

Dutch Navy Chaplain Kamp suggested, human dignity is imprescriptible; 

there are no sacred requirements for Humanists. Humanist chaplains functionally provide comfort, encouragement, and ultimately promote human 

flourishing. These functions may be the intended result for university and 
65

hospital chaplains, but these are not the lawful requirements of Army 

Chaplains.

Chaplain George notes that the Chaplain Corps could support Humanist chaplains if they develop religious requirements. He offers this resolution: 

As I understand Humanists, a life-stance is posited in which “Man 

is the measure of all things.” If however, “man” becomes the 

object of Humanist worship, and certain practices or rites become 

necessary for Humanist soldiers who are facing the prospect of 

death and combat, then this question will resolve itself.3

Chaplain Dyer pointed out that Unitarian Universalist chaplains would 

gladly welcome, promote, and help build community for Humanists or humanists of any belief. They are already a part of the Chaplain Corps and 

are readily available to meet the needs of any atheist, agnostic, freethinker, 

or Humanist by providing non-theistic literature, a place to gather, and 

confidential counseling. Some other chaplains, such as Chaplain Fisher, 

would do the same. The issue is that a Unitarian Universalist may or may 

not be a Humanist. Unitarian Universalist chaplains wear a Christian cross 

on their uniform, which may steer a non-theist away from inquiring about 

assistance in building community. A Unitarian Universalist may indeed 

be a helpful resource for the NTLS Humanist population, but it is not the 

same as having a Humanist chaplain.

So if Humanists have religious needs (not requirements) that are not 

being met, who can best help meet those needs? Chaplain George offers an 

alternative to the DRGL or Chaplaincy: a Distinctive Community Group 

Leader, or a Distinctive Humanist Leader. A leader who is outside of the 

Chaplain Corps would most likely appeal to the full spectrum of Humanists and humanists as well as other non-religious personnel including 

non-humanistic atheists and agnostics. A Humanist chaplain would appeal 

to fellow NTLS Humanists, but maybe not to someone who is non-religious. Having a Distinctive Humanist Leader could meet the needs of both 

the non-religious and the NTLS religious population. This solution still 

raises the question, to whom would this leader be responsible? The Chaplaincy? Another branch? Only future research and data analysis will tell 

for sure, but one possibility is the Medical Service Corps under Behavioral 

Sciences. NTLS Humanism is, after all, based on science and reason.
66

Notes

1. MAJ Ray Bradley, email to author. 10 April 2014.

2. Chaplain (LTC) Doyle Coffman, written answers to author in response to 

interview questions, 18 March 2014.

3. Chaplain George, written interview.
67

Chapter 11

Should the US Army Have Atheist Chaplains?

Outside of the Army Chaplain Corps, religious chaplains and secular 

chaplains subsist in America. Religious chaplains are primarily associated with a particular religious faith-group or denomination that engages 

in ritualistic practices and bases its belief on sacred texts, traditions, and 

reason. Secular and Humanist chaplains are primarily associated with science, reason, ethics, and life stance issues who also engage in ritualistic 

practices. Some would call the secular group non-religious. However, one 

could use the second definition of “religion” from Dictionary.com for a 

non-theistic group or sect, which simply refers to “a specific fundamental 

set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons 

or sects.”1 According to this definition, NTLS Humanism is a religion.

Humanism in all its various strands and “denominations” is indeed 

a small percentage of the Army population that presently does not have 

a chaplain to represent their beliefs. The gentlemen interviewed for this 

project, who sincerely believe that Humanist chaplains would benefit the 

Army, made strong arguments for why the Army needs chaplains to represent this population. Moreover, those who oppose Humanist chaplains 

agree that this population deserves the opportunity to build community 

and develop values, but not in the religious realm. 

With issues of sexual assault and suicide rates as high as they are, the 

Army senior leadership wants to do all it can to ensure the Army family has the ability to connect and stay connected to anyone and anything 

that helps build resiliency, morality, and values. Therefore, meeting the 

community needs of the NTLS Humanist population would seemingly enhance the spiritual and emotional health of this demographic. 

One can certainly argue for the inclusion of NTLS Humanists into 

US Army Chaplaincy. However, the greatest obstacle appears to be the 

ability of said NTLS Humanist chaplains to perform religious support. If 

American society were similar to the Netherlands, this would not be an 

issue, given the fact that Humanist chaplains – such as Chaplain Erwin 

Kamp – already exist in the Dutch armed forces. Furthermore, the United 

States of America is predominantly Christian or theistic, and the Army 

reflects the beliefs of society. While the country is moving away from its 

Judeo-Christian roots and restricting more and more religious practices 

in public and on state-funded property, the majority of the United States 

is still predominantly theistic. How receptive would society be to atheist 
68

chaplains leading American’s sons and daughters into combat and as a 

unit’s one and only religious leader?

As of today, no research shows the desires of American Soldiers regarding how well they would receive an atheist as their chaplain. Over 

time, this could possibly work in an evolving progressive, diverse, and 

tolerant (or perhaps more religiously intolerant) society. In 2016 however, 

the prospect of an atheist chaplain in the US Army, while not completely 

out of the realm of possibility, certainly seems improbable. Conversely, 

atheist chaplains at university campuses in America are indeed present 

to meet the needs of the non-religious student body, and Humanist communities at schools such as Harvard and Stanford are thriving. However, 

there is a major difference between the role of a chaplain at a university 

campus and that of an Army chaplain: the Army chaplain provides comprehensive religious support for all Soldiers in the unit. A Humanist chaplain at Harvard is not responsible for the religious needs of the Christian, 

Sikh, or Jewish populations at the university. The campus Chaplaincy has 

chaplains of various religions to meet the specific religious needs of each 

individual religion. 

In a predominantly atheistic country, or on a college campus where 

each chaplain provides support for their particular religion, a Humanist chaplain would serve its community without question. In the United 

States, more than three-quarters of the Army’s population is theistic, with 

only five percent of those Soldiers being non-Christian. It is one issue to 

be theistic and serve other theistic Soldiers of a different religion. It is altogether different for a non-theistic chaplain to serve Soldiers who believe 

in something beyond this present life. According to the statistics reported 

by the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers in Table 5, less 

than one percent of the Department of Defense claims to be non-theistic. 

Twenty-five percent claim no religious preference (NRP), so there may 

very well be more non-theistic personnel buried in that percentage. Until 

the Army uses an accurate method for collecting this demographic, the religious preferences represented in the NRP category will remain unknown.

Regardless of the statistical accuracy of the NRP designations, the 

data clearly shows a non-theistic population in the military, and according 

to Table 5, the non-theistic population is larger than any other non-Christian religion. If the reason for having Humanist chaplains was to meet the 

needs of the entire atheistic and agnostic population as described by the 

MAAF statistics showing “no chaplains for atheists,” then it makes more 

sense to have some type of counselor or Celebrant to represent this demographic. It seems contradictory to say these atheists have no chaplains 
69

when the goal is not to focus on the non-religious population but only the 

NTLS Humanist religious population. Nevertheless, the graph is accurate 

stating that atheists have no chaplain representation.

Meghan Hamilton of the American Humanist Association and Tom 

Flynn of the Council for Secular Humanism made it very clear why they 

believe secular humanism should not have any relationship with the 

Chaplain Corps or any organization that considers itself religious. Yet the 

MAAF statistics infer that a leader or representative for all non-theistic 

and non-religious personnel is warranted. 

All Army chaplains – regardless of their religion – currently serve 

both their religious and non-religious Soldiers, and even though Unitarian 

Universalists already provide non-theistic life stance support for Humanists (all types), it raises the question, why is there such a push for NTLS 

Humanist chaplains? They do not conduct worship services or religious 

requirements, which is the legal basis for military chaplains. They would 

most likely have to find another chaplain to conduct prayers, blessings, 

invocations, and religious counseling. The religious support they would 

offer would only be for other Humanists. Furthermore, the First Amendment religious freedoms – under which NTLS Humanists want protection – address open discussion about their beliefs and gathering as a community. However, those freedoms pertain to secular rights under the First 

Amendment: freedom of speech and the right to assemble; they do not 

pertain to religion.

This study’s conclusion comes down to two maxims that sum up the 

issue in the following equations: 1. Community + values ≠ religion. 2. 

Pastoral care – religion = Social Work. If the Chaplaincy focused only 

on comfort, counseling, encouragement, community, and values development, it would cease to be the Chaplaincy. The US Army Chaplaincy 

exists to provide comprehensive religious support. NTLS Humanism does 

not have any religious requirements or agreed upon religious practices. 

This fact sets them apart from those who do have religious requirements 

and practices. 

Again I ask, what is the underlying reason that such a group would want 

to associate with those whom they think are misinformed, weak-minded 

believers in myth, magic, and lies? Why is there such a strong motivation 

to have Humanist chaplains in the Army? I believe the answer lies in a 

famous assertion by the philosopher Jacques Derrida: “there is nothing 

outside the text.”
70

Incorrect understanding of Derrida’s post-modern philosophy of deconstructionism may be precisely the reason why it is problematic to define specific terms such as “religion,” “chaplain,” and “humanist.” In his 

book entitled Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? James K. A. Smith discusses Derrida’s idea about the paramountcy of text, suggesting that the phrase 

simply means “everything is interpretation” and is understood from its 

context. He explains that rules must govern interpretation, and only rules 

that have been established by a community can properly govern interpretation. Smith writes that Derrida himself affirmed a type of “interpretation 

police,” and therefore concluded that “communities fix contexts, and contexts determine meanings.”2

If communities ultimately determine meanings, it is no surprise that 

certain terms in America mean something different today than a generation 

or even a decade ago. Communities have redefined terms such as “gay” 

and “marriage,” so it is no surprise that terms like “church,” “religion,” 

“invocation,” and “chaplain” find themselves being deconstructed and 

given new definitions. The Army reflects society, and if society gives 

new context and new meanings to these words, then Humanists will 

Figure 4: Humanism’s striking resemblance to post-modern Christianity. Source: 

Chaplain (MAJ) Stephen Dicks, Editorial Cartoonist. Used with permission of the 

artist.
71

inevitably become chaplains in the Army. The interpretation police will 

certainly monitor the streets for violators and determine what is and is not 

acceptable.

I also concluded that another reason post-modernism influences 

the discussion of atheists in the military is because of the context of the 

post-modern church. I am not necessarily implying a pejorative view of the 

contemporary Christian church, but that its nature often resembles many 

of the same aspects of non-religious or community gatherings. Some contemporary churches use a seeker-sensitive paradigm that focuses on entertaining and socializing as a primary means of bringing “sheep into the 

fold.” Folks can sit around a table drinking barista-served beverages while 

watching church on a big screen or TV monitor. They often sing about 

God as their buddy and friend rather than revering Him as an almighty, 

holy, sovereign King. Sin is downplayed, and love and mercy are ostensibly God’s only attributes. 

If building community is the primary purpose of the church, then Humanists should undeniably be guaranteed a place alongside religious organizations. It makes absolute sense why they view their beliefs as religious 

and want to be a part of the Chaplain Corps and relate equally to the greater religious community. In fact, the only visible difference between some 

post-modern churches and a Humanist assembly is the absence of God 

from the picture. Figure 4 on the previous page represents my view of the 

devolution of the church as it relates to Humanism. This is not my view of 

all contemporary Christian churches, but of those who place the human element as the central purpose of the church rather than worshipping Christ 

for His finished work on the Cross and resurrection from the dead.
72

Notes

1. Dictionary.com, “religion,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t (accessed 9 April 2014).

2. James A. K. Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? (Grand Rapids: 

Baker Academic, 2007), 53.
73

Chapter 12

A Recommendation for Humanist Support 

Outside of the Chaplaincy

A cursory glance at the issue reveals a valid need not only for Humanist Celebrants but also for support for the secular and non-religious population as a whole. Therefore I recommend a secular approach to meeting 

this need in phases similar to the recommendation by Major Ray Bradley. 

A secular approach may not only meet the needs of the non-religious population, but provide religious Soldiers and family members the means to 

discuss their confidential issues with a non-religious counselor; they may 

prefer to attack their problems from a scientific perspective rather than a 

religious one. 

One of the main problems I see with appointing Humanist Chaplains 

is that they would offer Soldiers a “secular option” when facing requests 

for religious support – such as for prayer or a blessing. Offering a secular 

option defeats the purpose of having religious support. It would probably 

not be very popular if a Christian offered a religious option to an atheist, 

so why would it be acceptable for an atheist to offer a Christian a secular 

option? This is why the Chaplaincy exists – to help Soldiers exercise their 

freedom of religion. Offering a secular option borders on proselytizing, 

yet atheists complain when a religious person offers a religious option. 

The point here is that Humanism is more compatible with secular or scientific support rather than religious support. If a Humanist chaplain only has 

the responsibility to support other Humanists, this would not be an issue, 

but an Army chaplain is responsible for the religious support of the entire 

unit. It would be much easier for a religious chaplain to offer non-religious 

support than for an atheist or Humanist chaplain to offer religious support.

Appointing Humanist chaplains would not solve the problem of meeting the needs for atheists, agnostics, and Humanists for two reasons. First, 

if the need truly is as great as presented by the Humanist groups who are 

advocating for chaplains, then appointing Humanist chaplains will take 

far too long to accommodate the need on every military installation. The 

requirements are too rigorous and incompatible with the non-theistic life 

stance function. Regardless of the reason, the applications for Humanist 

chaplains have been delayed; hence, another route may hasten the process. 

Second, the title “Humanist chaplain” could possibly limit the scope of 

support with non-chaplain seeking Soldiers. Soldiers who list themselves 

as having no religious preference (NRP), or even nominally religious 
74

Soldiers who associate chaplains with theistic beliefs, may be averse to 

visiting a “chaplain.” Additionally, the term “Humanist” may also be 

confusing as it is still gaining momentum as a viable religious preference. 

Instead of bringing non-religious or Humanist chaplains in the Army, I 

recommend that the Army create a new position for a Non-Religious Life 

Stance Leader (NRLSL) or simply a Humanist Leader or Celebrant. This 

leader would potentially have the same confidentiality as Military and 

Family Life Consultants who do not keep written records of counseling 

sessions.1

 The NRLSL would be obligated to meet the requirements for 

current Humanist Celebrants rather than the 72-hour seminary degree and 

two years of full-time paid pastoral experience required for chaplains. The 

NRLSL would also have the same opportunities as chaplains to hold services, assemblies, workshops, concerts, and events that would contribute 

to the morale and welfare of both the non-religious and NTLS Humanist 

populations. Rather than serving in the Chaplain Corps, I recommend a 

scientific approach by placing this position under The Medical Service 

Corps. This branch currently offers two areas of concentration under the 

Medical Functional Area of Behavioral Sciences: Social Work and Clinical Psychology. Because Humanism is based on science and empirical 

evidence, it seems most reasonable to develop a position for such a leader 

under this (scientific) branch. Because the primary religious needs of the 

Humanist population are to build community and develop values, Social 

Work seems to be the best fit for Humanists Celebrants. 

As previously mentioned, the implementation of this new position 

should develop in phases. Initially, I recommend that the Army create a volunteer position under the Social Work area of concentration as 

a NRLSL patterned after the Chaplain DRGL position. This initial step 

would serve as a pilot study to determine how great the need actually is 

for such a representative. If the NRLSL should become overwhelmed with 

Soldier needs, the demand will be confirmed, and the Army could move 

into a second phase and designate a separate skill identifier – such as with 

the Master Resiliency Trainer for the Comprehensive Soldier and Family 

Fitness (CSF2) program. An approved NRLSL would also help identify 

the non-religious spiritual aspect of this program for those who oppose 

the use of the term spiritual.2

 If the needs prove to be as demanding as 

Humanists predict, then the final phase in this process could be to create a 

separate area of concentration under the Behavior Sciences Medical Functional Area with a Non-Religious Life Stance Department.

The initial phase of this solution would also end the delay with the 

AFCB and the battle for congressional support for non-religious chaplains. 
75

Furthermore, if Humanism would be considered a religion, the greatest 

danger is that it could be in jeopardy of violating the establishment clause 

as it could be recognized across the armed forces as a religion that is the 

default standard of care for Soldiers. Placing the position under the Medical Service Corps as a scientific position would avoid that possibility.

This conclusion does not eliminate a responsibility for chaplains to 

address the secular needs of the non-religious and Humanist population, 

because chaplains are responsible to provide moral and spiritual leadership 

to everyone. In addition to serving as the unit’s religious leader, chaplains 

regularly minister to non-religious Soldiers by offering secular resources 

and counseling that avoids religious terms. Therefore, I recommend that 

all chaplains become more familiar with NTLS Humanism, and consider offering non-religious support by connecting these Soldiers to other 

like-minded individuals when possible. This option to connect like-minded individuals should be up to each individual chaplain, but it is important 

to note that connection helps avoid the trap of isolation – a trap that is often a common precursor to suicide.3

 Whatever means chaplains can use to 

help Soldiers stay connected will only benefit that Soldier, his or her family, and the unit. Chaplains provide opportunities for Soldiers to connect on 

a regular basis – Soldiers who hold vastly different religious beliefs than 

their own. Providing resources for Humanists to connect would simply be 

another step in building morale for this non-theistic population. Similar to 

connecting new parents or Soldiers who hail from the same town or alma 

mater, connecting like-minded Humanists can help them find the support 

and camaraderie that only come from those who hold to the same beliefs. 

For chaplains who are interested, the MAAF website offers a page specifically for chaplains to assist them in connecting this non-theistic and 

freethinking community.
76

Notes

1. Military and Family Life Consultants are a part of the Military and 

Family Life Counseling (MFLC) Program, which is a service of the MHN Government Services, https://www.mhngs.com/app/programsandservices/mflc_program.content.

2. The CSF2 program promotes five dimensions of strength: Social, Emotional, Family, Spiritual, and Physical. The Spiritual dimension in this program, 

as well as in the Army’s Global Assessment Tool, has met with some resistance 

according to many atheist websites to include militaryatheist.org and the article 

entitled, “White House Addresses Military Spiritual Fitness Training” (24 

September 2013), http://militaryatheists.org/news/2013/09/white-house-addresses-military-spiritual-fitness-training/ (accessed 22 April 2014).

3. Defense Suicide Prevention Office, “Suicide Warning Signs,” http://www.

suicideoutreach.org/AboutSuicide/WarningSigns.aspx (accessed 24 April 2014).
77

Chapter 13

What if Humanist Chaplains are Approved?

Let the reader understand, I believe the Chaplain Corps is not the ideal 

proponent for atheist or NTLS Humanist chaplains. Science should support science, and chaplains should support religion. However, if the American people and Congress decide that Humanist chaplains will integrate 

into the Army Chaplaincy, I have three recommendations. First, as with 

the previous recommendation, Humanist Celebrants should phase into the 

Chaplaincy with a volunteer position as a DRGL. This initial step would 

ease the population into the concept of non-theistic religion. It would also 

allow these Celebrants to reveal the value they bring to the Army as they 

help commanders provide comprehensive religious support in an even 

more comprehensive manner (or less comprehensive manner, depending 

on one’s view of religious support). If the evidence reveals the value of 

this new type of religious leader, then the next obvious step is to appoint 

Humanist Chaplains.

Second, the chaplain branch insignia on the Army Combat Uniform 

should include the word “CHAPLAIN.” If Humanists become a part 

Figure 5: Suggested religious insignia on Chaplain Army Combat Uniform. 

Source: Created by author.
78

of the Chaplain Corps, they would most likely wear the Happy Human 

symbol as their branch insignia, as it is the approved emblem of belief 

for use on government headstones and markers.1

 Because the diversity 

of Chaplain insignia expands with the addition of each new religion 

to the Chaplain Corps – the most recent being a Hindu Chaplain – 

Soldiers may not understand what these symbols represent. Therefore, I 

recommend the Chaplain Corps change the branch insignia to include the 

word “CHAPLAIN” under the diverse symbols as a common identifier. 

Uninformed Soldiers may not recognize each individual symbol, but 

they will immediately recognize the presence of a chaplain. A suggested 

rendition is depicted in Figure 5 on the previous page.

Finally, with the addition of Humanist chaplains, the Army will either 

need to place them at the Garrison level to service the whole installation 

or begin approving requests for Christian DRGLs. If a deploying battalion 

had a Humanist chaplain, the unit would need a Christian DRGL, because 

an atheist cannot help Christians meet their religious requirements. Additionally, there is a chance that many religious Soldiers will simply not go 

to an atheist chaplain when they need counseling – and that is undoubtedly 

how chaplains spend most of their time. Therefore, the Soldiers will have 

to go to the Family Life chaplain or a sister battalion’s theistic chaplain, 

which will ultimately place a greater burden on the supporting chaplains. 

Not only will their workload increase, but it will also reduce their availability to support their own Soldiers. Commanders will undoubtedly take 

umbrage with this arrangement. Hence, the way to ameliorate this situation 

is to designate the Humanist chaplain as the installation or division non-religious chaplain until the Army understands the scope of such a change. 

As of this writing, the Army has not identified how many Soldiers 

would seek out a Humanist chaplain, nor has it identified how many would 

refuse Humanist chaplain support. Surveys to collect this data could help 

the Army better understand this apparent gap in religious support coverage.

Suggestions for Additional Research

One suggestion for future research is to conduct surveys across the 

Army to discover how Soldiers, commanders, and other chaplains would 

embrace or reject the possibility of appointing NTLS Humanist chaplains 

in the Army. The prospect of such a survey would take a talented wordsmith to accurately develop the questions to achieve the desired information. Explaining the idea of appointing Humanists, rather than simply 

atheists, is another hurdle researchers would have to clear. The data would 
79

certainly reveal a more accurate representation of how “we the people” 

would react to such a change in the way chaplains conduct religious support.

Another suggestion for future research is to identify the reason for 

inaccurate religious preference demographics and recommend solutions 

to resolve this issue. Soldiers are not required to list a religious preference, 

and many probably choose not to list anything. However, it seems as if 

there is a fundamental flaw with the current process of collecting this information. It is unclear why the National Guard statistics show agnostics 

in their ranks, but the active duty number is zero. There should be a standard for collecting this data across all components. The fact that the Army 

does not accurately track agnostics reveals the complacency associated 

with equal treatment of non-theists. This is a primary complaint that organizations like the MAAF have with the apparent exclusion of non-theists 

in relation to majority religions. 

Conclusion

Only time will tell what society and Congress will decide regarding 

federal law and policies authorizing atheists to serve as Army chaplains. 

And if that day comes, those who are in the Chaplain Corps will have to 

make a decision as to whether or not they will be able to continue to serve 

alongside non-theistic Humanists. The discussion came and went over the 

possibility of a mass chaplain exodus should the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” 

policy be repealed. The resulting exodus? Not many. Would the opposition be greater with the addition of Humanist chaplains? It is hard to 

tell, but those of us who were called into the ministry of the Army Chaplaincy would have to decide whether the calling was only momentary, or 

for as long as we have the opportunity to serve our country and its sons 

and daughters. I imagine that if Humanist chaplains were admitted to the 

Corps, then most of us would salute the flag and continue providing comprehensive religious support according to the tenets of our faith and with 

strong support from the endorsers we represent. We would respect one 

another, we would work collaboratively, and we would strive for excellence as we advise the command and perform or provide comprehensive 

religious support to the Army.
80

Notes

1. US Department of Veterans Affairs, “National Cemetery Administration,” 

http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp (accessed 29 April 2014).
81

Glossary

Celebrant: Humanist Celebrants conduct humanist, nonreligious, and 

interreligious weddings, commitment/same-sex unions, memorials, baby namings, and other life cycle ceremonies. Humanist 

Celebrants are legally recognized in all states and worldwide, 

being accorded the same rights and privileges granted by law to 

traditional clergy.1

External Advisement: The chaplain advises the command on the specifics 

of the religious environment within their area of operations that 

may impact mission accomplishment. This can include indigenous religions in the area of operations, holy days that could 

impact military operations, and the significance of local religious 

leaders and structures.2

Internal Advisement: The chaplain is responsible for advising the command on the religious practices and requirements of Soldiers 

and authorized civilians within the command. This can include 

identifying holy days, specific worship requirements, dietary 

requirements, and wearing of religious garments.3

Non-theistic Life Stance Humanism: Author’s own designation of the 

particular group of atheist Humanists who want Humanist chaplains in the military and consider Humanism as a religion.

“Nones”: A religious demographic representing those who choose not to 

list a specific religious affiliation.

Religious Support: Those aspects of religious education, clergy counsel, 

pastoral care, authentic worship, and faith group expression that 

would otherwise be denied as a practical matter to Soldiers under 

the varied circumstances of military contingencies.4
82

Notes

1. Humanist-Society.org

2. Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 1-05, Religious Support

(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2012), 1-3.

3. Department of the Army, FM 1-05, 1-3.

4. Department of the Army, FM 1-05, 1-2.
83

Appendix A

Humanist Interview Questions

The following information was sent to participants in research for this 

study so they could preview the interview questions prior to the interview:

Please note that the term “religious” in “non-religious” instances has a 

transcendent connotation rather than simply a set of beliefs or practices. 

But feel free to discuss the term as you understand it.

1. What benefits would a Humanist chaplain bring to the Army?

2. What are the primary reasons the Army should or should not have Humanist chaplains?

3. What, if any, are the religious or lifestance requirements of Humanism?

4. What do Humanists consider as sacred? (or is there another term for 

“sacred”?)

5. Religious interaction questions – possibly similar responses for a-e

a. How would non-religious chaplains minister to religious people?

b. If a dying Soldier asked for prayer, how would a Humanist chaplain 

respond?

c. How would a Humanist chaplain conduct an invocation?

d. How would a Humanist chaplain give a blessing?

e. How would a Humanist chaplain participate in an ecumenical program such as a Thanksgiving service?

6. What needs do a non-religious population have that religious chaplains 

cannot meet?

7. What else can the Army do to better accommodate the non-religious 

population?

8. How would the Army Chaplaincy have to change if Humanists were 

appointed to serve as Chaplains?

9. What one or two top issues would arise (if any) in having both religious 

and non-religious chaplains serving together?

10. Any other input not listed above for consideration on this topic?

85

Appendix B 

Humanist Interview Responses

Interview questions and associated responses as asked by the Author 

(Val) to the following Humanist Leaders:

Jason Torpy (JT) President of the Military Association of Atheists and 

Freethinkers (MAAF) (Responded in writing through email)

MAJ Ray Bradley (RB) Applicant to become a US Army Secular Humanist DFGL (Responded in writing through email)

Jason Heap (JH) Applicant to become a US Navy Humanist Chaplain 

(Responded in writing through email)

Chaplain Greg Epstein (GE) Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University 

(Transcribed telephone interview)

Chaplain Erwin Kamp (EK) Dutch Navy Humanist Chaplain (Responded in writing through email)

Val: Please note that the term “religious” in “non-religious” instances has 

a transcendent connotation rather than simply a set of beliefs or practices. 

But feel free to discuss the term as you understand it.

Intro remarks:

JT: Overall, we’re seeking equal standards and there are actual candidates under consideration. So for the purpose of discussion, please consider the Humanist Society as a prospective chaplain endorser or to Jason 

Heap as a potential chaplain candidate. When considering objections, 

obstacles, or questions to that endorser/chaplain combination, please consider whether that standard is applied to all other endorsers and military 

chaplains. That should eliminate most objections and allow us to focus 

on how to work together.

http://militaryatheists.org/news/2013/08/interfaith-leaders-support-humanist-chaplaincy/

Val: 1. What benefits would a Humanist chaplain bring to the Army?

JT: The primary benefit is to the candidate. Chaplains are not accessed 

to meet demographics or to fill a certain need. Those considerations are 

relevant, but they aren’t primary. The best qualified candidate is selected. 

Federal Equal Opportunity Employment law and the job description of 

the position dictate. The candidate should not be discriminated against on 

the basis of his or her beliefs. The chaplain’s job description requires a 
86

certain endorsement and experience level that humanists can meet. So the 

benefit is a fair hiring process that provides the best candidate for the job.

Also, for the candidate, there is an opportunity to serve in the US military and in a profession that is concerned with personal welfare and 

values-based living. That is a benefit not only to an individual but to all 

those humanists who wish to dedicate their lives to such a profession.

The Department of Defense benefits by showing its commitment to diversity of belief and to including all service members regardless of their 

beliefs. In addition, they will have a valuable and formal connection to 

the humanist community to ensure that training, of all kinds, can include 

the humanist perspective. Currently, there is no such connection and 

training almost invariably ignores or misrepresents humanists and other 

nontheists. By including such a perspective, the DoD through its training 

will have a happier, healthier, more resilient, and more effective combat 

force. 

Individual service members will benefit from having the best-qualified 

chaplain candidate. 

Some humanists who have access to the humanist chaplain (and others 

who follow) will benefit from the humanist-specific counseling and support a humanist chaplain that only a humanist chaplain can provide. 

RB: A Humanist chaplain would help connect the powerful resources 

and services of the Chaplaincy to Soldiers who are not religious. Many 

of these resources and services are not strictly sectarian. For example, 

Strong Bond events provide great opportunity for couples to reconnect 

after separations without regard for religiosity. Also, the Chaplaincy 

assists Soldiers with significant life events such as weddings, funerals, 

and naming ceremonies. And chaplains avail themselves as counselors to Soldiers who seek solace during life’s tragedies and challenges. 

However, in times of need, non-religious Soldiers will avoid seeking 

assistance through the Chaplaincy when they suspect their lack of faith is 

viewed as part of the problem. Just having a Humanist chaplain on staff 

will communicate to all Soldiers that they are welcomed regardless of 

faith. Conversely, not having a Humanist chaplain segregates the Army 

into those who are welcomed by the Chaplaincy and those who are not, 

despite the efforts to communicate otherwise. The benefit to the Army is 

a more effective Chaplaincy that reaches out to all Soldiers. Such inclusiveness can only improve morale and reduce stressors that lead to far 

greater problems. 
87

JH: Firstly, there is an issue of diversity that needs to be met. An institution such as the US Army is a cross-section reflection of the society atlarge. Although self-labelled ‘Humanists’ are a minority group, in terms 

of whatever can be broadly described as “religion” or “belief,” they are, 

nonetheless, a bona fide group, no matter what numerical percentage or 

proportion of society. Basic foundational documents that underpin what 

we know of as “American” life, that our systems of government and 

civilization are based upon, are fairly straightforward in the notion that 

what is “America” is a unified group of differing people. The “dream” or 

“ideal” of “America” is part of a long and continuing struggle to reinterpret these ideals and values from the 1600s/1700s in light of changes 

within American society. Issues of social justice and social harmony that 

were at one time considered to be “wrong” (e.g., women voting, African-American men and women treated as equals, LGBTQ open pride 

and not hiding, relaxed and inclusive immigration policies) or “liberal” are now social norms, though it is fair to say that the birth pangs of 

each social change were difficult and born through struggle. To accept a 

non-theistic chaplain reaffirms and continues to legitimize even the most 

traditional of American ideals, though reinterpreted (as it always is and 

will be) through the lens of current experience. Ironically, to affirm and 

welcome a non-theistic chaplain is to actually “conserve” the traditional 

ideals, but in a “liberal” way.

Secondly, a Humanist brings a new perspective to the Army, thus adding to the enrichment of servicemen and servicewomen’s experiences. 

The US military itself, like anything else in the world, is evolving. My 

“uncle” (I am adopted, so my adoptive mother’s brother) was in the 

US Marine Corps during the Korean War. TA (Thomas Anthony) was 

considered to be of “low intelligence” by the standards of the USMC, 

and was funnelled into a program that destined him for the infantry. After 

some heavy tours of duty, he took an honourable discharge and then did 

the only thing he thought he was capable of: law enforcement. His son, 

however, also joined the USMC when he was a little older and I recall 

TA telling me that “It wasn’t the leathernecks that I knew of,” when 

he listened to his son’s stories. Point being? The USMC changed and 

with its understanding of how people think, interact, etc., as well as the 

movement of US foreign policy and economic situations back home, the 

Corps’ decisions changed the ethos of its environment and work, therefore providing others with different experiences than his father. Not just 

the Corps, but think of schools: Back To the Future and Marty McFly’s 

dad’s school is not the same kind of school and environment that you and 
88

I learned in and attended! As the Army’s understanding of its “membership” evolves, it too must move in different directions to provide enriching experiences that are different than before. The military is no longer 

seen as a place for substandard people who are only good for killing, 

marching, etc. In fact, the US Navy’s “Fleet and Family” ethos demonstrates a different commitment to various facets of life beyond cleaning 

weapons and crawling under barbed wire. 

Most importantly, to me, a Humanist chaplain meets the needs of identity. Yes, it is understood – for good reasons – that the military must move 

together as a cohesive unit, and a certain sense of the “self” must be forfeited in order that the individual becomes an integral part of the collective. This is directly related to the success of units, battalions, squadrons, 

platoons, armies, fleets, etc. However, these collectives are comprised 

of individual persons who are not drones or zombies, but living, thinking human beings with self-identity, dreams, hopes, aspirations, desires, 

commitments, etc. A sense of belonging or connection with someone 

“like me” or “who understands me” is a central need for a wholesome 

and healthy individual who then relates to others. To deny non-theistic 

people with that outlet makes them less of a person and interpersonally 

incomplete. I make the analogy of people being like a cash machine/

ATM: you can’t withdraw unless you’ve paid-in. As long as people feel 

as if their lives aren’t being paid-into, the day will soon come when the 

cash machine of the individual and collective eventually comes back at 

bankrupt (or, in Martin Luther King’s phrase, “insufficient funds” from 

the Bank of Justice). I am concerned that, without a Humanist chaplaincy 

presence in the military, it is pumping dry the well of goodwill and that 

has more negative knock-on effects down the line that will surface, perhaps at the least-opportune moment when it shouldn’t be dealt with.

GE: I would like to think there are many benefits that one could bring to 

the Army. Among them are hopefully a passion for meeting the ethical 

and spiritual needs of a growing number of young people including, 

and as I understand it, a growing number of young military men and 

women who identify as secular or non-religious or humanist or atheist 

or agnostic but still have strong needs to consider the meaning of their 

lives and the meaning of their service to connect in community with 

other like-minded peers and colleagues and to reflect intentionally and 

an intensive way on the significance of their lives. A chaplain is someone 

who can facilitate those activities. It is somebody who can help a soldier 

or potentially even a family member of a soldier or whatever it might 

be – anybody that works on or around military life. A chaplain could help 
89

that person to be a more active and full healthy functioning contributor to 

the life of that army institution in some of the same ways that a religious 

chaplain would help religious people. And also I would say that a humanist chaplain could potentially help religious people on an army base or an 

army unit of some kind, particularly those that were not as well served 

by some of the religious options available to them. A humanist chaplain 

is somebody that may not be coming from a specifically religious place, 

but its somebody who understands the need that different people feel 

for community and for meaning and for purpose for deep reflection and 

connection and could be potentially able to facilitate that for a fairly wide 

range of individuals.

EK: Freedom to choose for your own denomination for military, veterans, and their families (freedom of religion);

• counseling from a humanist perspective for military, veterans, 

and their families;

• humanist services instead of church services;

• giving commanders advice on humanization [and] meaning of 

[life] in the army

Val: 2. What are the primary reasons the Army should or should not 

have Humanist chaplains?

JT: The Army should have humanist chaplains because the Army has humanists. There are more humanists than any non-Christian denomination 

(see MAAF demographics page which lays out individual religious preferences. This is extrapolated from several sources but most specifically 

the DEOMI survey information. Feel free to confirm independently.)

But as I said, it’s not about matching demographics. However, there is a 

big difference between absolutely no recognition or support and having 

even one humanist chaplain. That explicit inclusion and recognition will 

measurably improve the support given by the 5000 non-humanist chaplains who will then 1) know they have to support humanists equally and 

2) will have someone “on the inside” to call.

http://militaryatheists.org/demographics/

RB: Instead of a Chaplaincy, say the Army created a well-funded organization for Soldiers to seek and obtain balance and harmony in their 

lives in order to promote morale and decrease stress-induced medical 

conditions. This organization is given many facilities and a large staff for 

its programs. It organizes fun and exciting events on base and throughout the community which are available to all Soldiers and their families. 
90

Further, this organization is authorized to use all means of advertising 

and communications to promote its activities. However, only atheists 

are allowed to be staff members. And, to be qualified, leaders of this 

organization must not only be atheists, they must also hold a doctorate 

of science from only those universities approved by the highest leaders 

of the program. And all Soldiers must either affiliate with one of these 

universities or choose to be labeled as a “non-affiliate” on their official 

military records for every selection board, commander, and supervisor to 

see. Also, at the opening and closing of every program, mandatory ceremony, and command-sponsored event, a leader of this organization gives 

a brief speech filled with the wisdom of secular sages who prevailed 

against superstition and magical beliefs while glorifying humanity’s 

scientific achievement and understanding of the natural universe from the 

Big Bang to human evolution. Without a Chaplaincy as an alternative, 

how would Christians feel about such an organization? Would they feel 

their needs are equally provided for by this organization? Or would they 

feel like an unwelcomed outsider without even the dignifying acknowledgement that there are any Christians in the Army, only “non-affiliates?” 

It’s a trick question. But if asked, you’ll understand the primary reason 

why the Army should have Humanist chaplains. 

JH: Let’s take these in bullet points, starting with “should:”

• The diversity issue (listed above) is key. There are already people 

in the US military who FREELY self-identify (because they finally 

have the “right” to do so!) as “Humanist.” There is no reason to deny 

a group that has the right to self-identify with someone “like them.”

• Having a Humanist chaplain demonstrates real, non-lip-service, 

commitment to our Constitutional ideals. 

• The issue of identity, as mentioned above.

• Bringing in something new keeps things fresh. From what I 

am reading on the internet, the current situation with chaplaincy is 

much-of-a-muchness and a recycling of what is already there. New 

ideas bring new opportunities and advancement.

• It truly meets everyone’s needs. To provide PROPER care and 

support to everyone, the military has chaplains from as broad a spectrum as possible. A Humanist chaplain could be the “go-to person” 

for non-theists in need of pastoral care who just don’t want to talk to 

a believer of an organized religion. 

Shouldn’t:
91

• It challenges the status-quo, and people might not like the idea 

of change. Academic literature on “change leadership” demonstrates 

that there might be a large resistance to a new initiative when people 

feel as if they *must* do something rather than helping them see the 

benefits of the change.

• I have also read some opinions where “far left” people wish to 

abolish the whole idea of chaplains altogether in favour of a counsellor, as the connotation of the word “chaplain” drags up religious 

language. 

GE: My understanding is that the army has reason to believe that the 

young people that it is currently recruiting – and will be recruiting in the 

future – are likely to look like the young people that spread out across 

the rest of the United States today which means that those young people 

are less religious as a generation than any other previous generation in 

American history, that American millennials are in very, very significant 

numbers seeking meaning and purpose and community outside of religious boundaries. And chaplains, in my understanding, are a part of army 

life in order to help soldiers cope with the tremendous existential crises 

and issues that they face on a day to day basis due to the fact that they 

are a soldier and that they work in the army which just presents obvious 

existential issues for anybody who works in it. And we need to provide 

options for people who everyday carry the burden of potentially giving 

their lives for their country. It’s not enough to point this growing generation of people to psychologists. Psychologists are incredibly helpful. I 

would hope that psychologists are available for both religious and non 

religious soldiers, but psychologists only have so much that they can do 

about helping people to connect with a sense of community support that 

chaplains can help with. Psychologists are somewhat limited in helping people to determine the meaning and purpose of their lives, which 

is something that chaplains in my understanding work on. Either army 

chaplains are there to help people connect with a sense of community 

and meaning and purpose to life, or army chaplains are there to help people to connect with a certain religious belief. In the latter case I don’t see 

how chaplains are justified at all in the army. In the former case I don’t 

see how humanist chaplains can be excluded from that work.

EK: No primary reasons in the Netherlands!

Val: 3. What, if any, are the religious or lifestance requirements of 

Humanism?
92

JT: “Requirements” isn’t exactly the right word. But I say that because 

we are non-dogmatic. “Freethinker” is a favorite term because the individual and individual liberty especially liberty of thought is highly-valued. (But Freethinker is sometimes avoided because we don’t want to 

imply others can’t think freely.)

That having been said, human flourishing is the ultimate core-value. 

Humanists seek human flourishing. “What is that?” is the obvious question, and that has lots of good answers, with answers potentially as different as those given by Christians about salvation in the Bible, probably 

less-so (but that’s just because there are more self-identified Christians 

out there.)

The process of identifying human flourishing is done from a nontheistic 

and naturalistic world view of scientific naturalism. (This differs from 

some beliefs that have no god but would have supernatural concepts like 

karma or reincarnation.) What is and is-not supernatural is another question up for interpretation, but a humanist would never posit an explicitly 

supernatural hypothesis (e.g., it was a miracle, or god showed me the 

way, or acupuncture energy lines are beyond the natural world).

A key addition is a skeptical approach to knowledge which is to say 

non-existence and ignorance is the default position, just like in science. 

A standard of evidence is applied before accepting (or considering) any 

given hypothesis. For example, god doesn’t exist until such time as 

sufficient evidence is provided, or what happened before the big bang 

is unknown and we would not say god did it simply to fill in the unanswered question.

With the skeptical and scientific world view and the ultimate value of 

human flourishing, we can live an ethical and meaningful life. Those 

actions which support human flourishing would be ethical and meaningful. And those actions which oppose human flourishing would be less/unethical and less/unmeaningful. This is obviously a long conversation and 

this is essentially what would be humanist “theology,” if I understand 

it correctly. That would be starting with the humanist values and world 

view and ordering the world and one’s life accordingly. 

Like some beliefs and very unlike others, humanists are very interested in questioning even their ultimate values and world views and are 

continually trying to improve. In this sense, humanism is a questioning, 

progressive philosophy that grows and changes by design. Other beliefs 

are fundamentally conservative, raising up the answers rather than the 
93

questions as most important and looking to the past rather than the future 

for answers.

Also see MAAF FAQ “What is Humanism All About” and related references.

http://militaryatheists.org/about/faqs/what-is-humanism-all-about/

RB: The requirements of Humanism are no different than the requirements of the many religions around the world; they are determined by 

the individual. Sure, many religions have doctrines that try to codify 

requirements. But all are subject to interpretation and are followed in 

differing ways often giving rise to a multitude of sects. However, Humanism embraces diversity and change, whereas most religions strive for 

solidarity and endurance in their beliefs. The Humanist Manifesto is a 

guide for many Humanists. The broad concepts this document expounds 

are far from requirements, though. In fact, the Humanist Manifesto has 

evolved through three versions beginning with the initial manifesto in 

1933 through changes in 1973 to the current version written in 2003 and 

signed by 21 Nobel laureates. This latest version clearly points out that 

the manifesto is not a list of what Humanists must believe, but is a consensus of what Humanists do believe. It goes further than any religious 

document by acknowledging that societies change over time and with 

that change, Humanist values and ideals adapt to best maximize individual happiness and better lead to fulfilled lives. Willingness to adapt from 

experience and new knowledge sets Humanism apart from most religions 

and it is a critical reason why Humanists desire to congregate in order 

to share ideas and develop their understanding of what it means to be a 

Humanist.

JH: To me, one of the best things about Humanism is that it is non-prescriptive in terms of keeping “orthodoxy.” In its expression in America, 

The Humanist Manifesto III has been carefully written in such a way to 

be as inclusive as possible and with a democratic ideal, it is an understanding that this is what “Humanists, for the most part affirm at X time.” 

This means that, as humans evolve and our knowledge and understanding 

of the world evolves, so does the expression in the Manifesto III. This 

is a liberating feeling! It means that the core values of Humanism are 

subject to scientific principles of discussion, theorizing, searching for evidence, consensus-building, logic . . . all of the things that dogmatic and 

orthodoxy-desiring groups cannot achieve. This also means that there is 

an inclusivity within Humanism, rather than exclusivism because “You 

don’t believe X, therefore you are outside the group.” 
94

Within the Manifesto III, there are certain ideals, though that, in my opinion (and this is wonderful . . . it’s open to debate, because my opinion is 

my opinion and may not be shared by the next person who is also reading 

the same Manifesto!) are commonly-held views, though not “requirements:”

1. The acceptance of scientific methods as a way of coming to knowledge. This means that supernaturalism and myth are considered invalid, 

though it does not mean that they are unimportant things to consider; 

after all, “religion” is a human construct, and the language of religion is a 

human creation to talk about what is commonly understood as “divine.” 

Humanists search for truth in things that can be tested and discussed in 

public forums, rather than shrouded in seclusion and a haze of myth.

2. Being open to as many views as possible. Again this connects with the 

scientific method. What’s to say that my view is the best, or that my experience (or interpretation of experience) is any more valid than the next 

person’s? Perhaps we are looking at the same “reality,” but from different 

perspectives. Open discourse leads to a better and broader understanding 

between people, and being open keeps the conversation going, rather 

than searching for “the” answer.

Ethical living of the individual in relation to others. Let’s face it: if I 

screw it up, it’s MY doing. Yes, there may be factors that impacted upon 

my screwing something up, but it’s ultimately on my shoulders to do 

something about it. It isn’t a live-for-now ethic, but rather a realization 

that I am in charge of my own life and its decisions. If I’m ashamed 

with the outcomes of something I have done, it’s my responsibility 

to put it right and to do so as quickly as possible because there is no 

afterlife when it’ll all be wonderful and warm/fuzzy. People’s feelings 

are real and they are real today. The consequences of our life choices 

on the natural world are real and we are seeing this today. If a need is 

discovered and I am in a position to do so now, then now is the best 

time to take action. See what I mean? I do not want to be 80 years old, 

and then look back on my life with regrets. When it’s my time to go, I’d 

like to do so with a sense of dignity, knowing that I did the best I could 

with what I had. If an opportunity is lost, then on my head so be it. This 

ethic is one that mixes strength with debasement at the same time: it 

means that I am an empowered individual, and at the same time, I am 

responsible for what I do with this empowerment when I relate to others 

and the world around me.
95

GE: This is an interesting question because we know that religions have 

many rites and ordinances and prescriptions that they make about what 

people are supposed to do and not do, but we also know that the average 

religious person doesn’t follow those. If you have a Catholic chaplain 

or an orthodox Jewish chaplain or an evangelical chaplain on an army 

base talking to soldiers who are nominally Catholic or nominally Jewish 

or nominally Protestant, I would suggest that those chaplains are most 

likely not spending the majority of their time prescribing and making a 

checklist of what religious behaviors these people are and are not doing. 

Because if they were, I would strongly suspect that they would find that 

most soldiers are like most people: somewhat religious but not following all the commandments and precepts in their holy book. And so for 

Humanists, I think that there is a sense that the basic tenets of humanism 

are really quite simple, but then the nuances of what it is to be a good humanist are quite complicated, and we debate them at every moment – in 

some of the same ways as religious people debate what it is to be a good 

religious person. Simple parts of what it is to be a good humanist are to 

use our human reason and our compassion to live lives that are healthy 

for ourselves and healthy for our loved ones and healthy for society and 

the world as a whole. That we follow basic ethics and basic laws that 

suggest that we are at liberty to take life or to harm others without a 

tremendous amount of justification for the fact that we would be doing a 

filling of self defense and in the interest of saving the lives of our country/people and our loved ones. So we value human life as sacred unto 

itself, that our time here in this world is all we have and know, and so 

every moment of it, every life is precious and caring, and compassionate 

instruction is all we have until it is to be treated as the ultimate end unto 

itself. But what it means to care about people, what it means to connect 

with people, what it means to treat people with dignity and ethics – this is 

something we debate and discuss constantly – again, in some of the same 

ways religious people often dialogue and debate with one another about 

what it is to be a good person. You got Christians that fundamentally 

disagree with one another on important ethical and practical issues. You 

got Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhist that do so as well and 

same with humanists.

EK: Anyone who values self-determination, equality, responsibility, 

tolerance, solidarity, fairness and justice, and recognizes these from the 

bottom of his heart, can call himself a humanist.

There are some points that most humanists have in common:

• They give each individual a decent life
96

• They reject any form of fundamentalism or of opinion forced off

• They consider democracy as the optimal form of government and 

a guarantee against abuse of power

• They are in principle in favor of the separation of church and 

state

• They reject discrimination on grounds of sex, race, ethnicity, 

sexual orientation, age and belief

• They are a tolerant society based on shared values, but also pro -

vide space to fill in their own responsibilities

• They stand up for equal treatment where humanists who are disadvantaged compared to other philosophical orientations

• They do everything possible to make training and education as 

accessible as possible

• They come out openly for their humanistic beliefs and are about 

ready to debate

• They recognize that doubt and reviewing your opinion is always 

possible, as a result of new information or experiences.

Val: 4. What do Humanists consider as sacred? (or is there another 

term for “sacred?”)

JT: Sacred probably isn’t the right term, especially if it’s meant more 

like “sacrosanct” or untouchable. But if you mean most important and 

most meaningful, it would be the “questioning, progressive philosophy” 

portion in question 3. Persisting in delusion for personal comfort (in grief 

or daily life) might be considered anti-humanist as much as any “cardinal 

sin.”

This is a good point to note that, for example, it would be anti-humanist to tell the grieving Newtown mother that their child was actually 

living in heaven and looking down on her. A humanist would consider 

this a comfortable but false and ultimately hollow myth. But a humanist chaplain would be aware and supportive of that mother in crisis and 

incorporate her world view without hesitation or even regret. In that time 

of trouble, her values and beliefs are accessible and it would be entirely 

humanist in that situation to help her rely on her beliefs (even if different 

than the chaplain’s) for acute-trauma recovery.

RB: “Sacred” is by definition a spiritual word as it invokes worship and 

devotion to a deity. Therefore, it has no place other than allegory in the 

world of Humanism. However, Humanist place a very high value on 

knowledge derived from observation, experience, and rational analysis. 

The process for obtaining knowledge this way is venerated and so might 
97

equate to a religious person’s understanding of sacred. Additionally, 

human compassion is held with similar regard. But Humanists place no 

such value on particular places, relics, or symbols.

JH: Nothing “sacred,” but I would think that Humanists have high regard and respect for ideals and ethics. I think that the progression of humans, overall, would be the closest thing to “sacred” but not with deistic 

fervour about it. Without a connection to a deity or some other supernatural feeling, Humanists are passionate about life, knowing and understanding our world, seeing people improve, watching justice be delivered 

to an oppressed group, seeing people have dreams to improve something 

and then watching it happen. I oftentimes feel a sense of “amazement” at 

something new – technology, for instance, or some new discovery – that 

demonstrates a talent and ability inside people, but I don’t go away and 

thank god that he/she/it/whatever gave people this ability to make this 

discovery possible. 

Val asks: What would be your religious practices protected under the 

first amendment? Practices we don’t want taken away by the government.

GE: Freethinking in community is in itself an equivalent of a religious 

practice for a humanist. In other words my ability to think out loud and 

to talk about the meaning of my life in as open an honest a way as I 

possibly can – including exploring ideas about my life that some very 

religious people would consider to be blasphemous, because I do believe 

that my life is limited to between my birth and my death, and that others 

lives are as well, and my ability to talk about that in company of others 

and to express my feelings about my life and others’ lives in an honest 

way in an open way in the company of peers. That’s something – that if 

that right were to ever be taken away from me – my right to assert that 

I am part of a community of people that calls itself humanist or secular 

or freethinking or whatever kind of community, and that we have this 

common belief – this common story, this common understanding of the 

significance of our lives, that our beliefs motivate us to serve the institutions that we serve and to live the lives that we live. If that ability was 

ever to be curtailed or taken from me or if I were ever to face discrimination because I wanted to gather with like-minded people in whatever 

means of my choice, then that would basically ruin my life. That would 

destroy my freedom to be who I am and who I want to be.

Val: That would be freedom of assembly I think right? 
98

GE: But its freedom of conscience though. From a humanist worldview 

there is no one particular formula like the equivalent of a prayer that I 

would need to say. There is no one particular ritual that I must perform 

in order to be a good person, but there are any number of things that I 

might want to say out loud, things I might want to express, things that I 

might want to share with another person – a ceremony that I might want 

to hold, whether it’s a humanist wedding, funeral, baby-naming ceremony, whatever it might be. There are just so many different possibilities of 

ways that I might choose to express myself humanistically, where I am 

just expressing my strong convictions and beliefs. And I need protection 

from discrimination in doing so, that if I was a Christian soldier and I 

were to say “look I’m a passionate Christian. I wear this cross, and I’m 

serving my country and potentially dying for my country because I believe in Jesus.” If somebody else were to come along and say, “you can’t 

be part of a community that believes that” or that “I denigrate your right 

to believe that,” “I denigrate you because you believe that.” They could 

potentially ruin my life and it’s the same thing for me if I’m a humanist 

soldier I would think.

EK: A better word is: imprescriptible

Imprescriptible is our human dignity 

5. Religious interaction questions – possibly similar responses for a-e

5a. How would non-religious chaplains minister to religious people?

JT: The same way a good Christian chaplain ministers to a Muslim or a 

Buddhist ministers to a Christian. (It all comes down to applying equal 

standards. We’re no more different than Christians than Buddhists are 

different than Muslims, so this managing different beliefs is a fundamental part of chaplaincy.)

RB: How do different Christian chaplains minister to a Jew or a Muslim 

or a Buddhist?

JH: First and foremost, a trained pastoral caregiver is a trained professional: ministry and care-giving is “ministry” and “care-giving,” with the 

exception of the removal of the theistic language. 3 influential works I 

read at the MDiv program: The Theology for the Social Gospel (Walter 

Rauschenbusch; New York City Baptist minister in the early 1900s, near 

Hell’s Kitchen), The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches (Ernst 

Troeltsch, 19th century German sociologist), and The Social Teachings 

of the Black Churches (Peter Parish, late 20th century scholar of African-American theology). Bottom line for each of these works: human 
99

beings’ social needs as a precursor to any “religious experience.” In 

other words, if I’m hungry or tired or despondent or . . . then why would 

you think I’m in any way interested in hearing you talk about a set of 

theological platitudes? An effective pastoral caregiver searches for the 

common denominator linking all of us – the human condition – and does 

whatever is necessary to meet these needs before going down the route of 

theology. 

On the other hand, let’s assume that everything is “ok” with the exception of the theological bit. Here again, a chaplain as a professional caregiver is there to initiate and conduct pastoral conversations. A wholesome 

pastoral conversation, by psychological definition, does not mean the 

caregiver becomes the source of the answer. On the contrary, it is about 

helping people to put themselves back together again. Psychiatric and 

psychological help requires specialist training, but the pastoral caregiver 

helps the “client” (for lack of better word) to work towards self-healing. Sometimes, it involves “listening love” (Paul Tillich), other times it 

might mean to challenge a way of thinking or providing alternative views 

to a pronounced problem, other times it might mean helping that person 

access another person or service to bring a solution to the problem (e.g., 

back to “Fleet and Family” in the Navy). 

GE: I think that there might be some similar answers to how a religious 

chaplain of one denomination or religion might be able to serve a religious soldier of another denomination or religion in the sense that I 

would think that it would start with being a person who was trained to be 

a helpful and effective listener and who is trained in being able to help 

others to reflect on how to make meaning/make sense of the meaning of 

their lives. So a non-religious or humanist chaplain sitting with a religious soldier, I think, would honor whatever religious worldview that 

soldier was deeply convinced of that allowed that soldier to be a good 

person and to help others and serve his or her country. 

EK: As equal and a colleague

Val: 5b. If a dying Soldier asked for prayer, how would a Humanist 

chaplain respond?

JT: As an endorser, I would expect our chaplains to be well-versed in 

and ready to guide the individual in prayer. If the situation dictated, the 

humanist chaplain might offer that he/she himself is not actually praying because the humanist doesn’t believe like the Soldier. But mostly, it 

would be a matter of offering something in the tradition of the individual, 
100

and I would expect our chaplains to be as ready as any Buddhist or Mormon is to pray with any Muslim or Jew.

RB: As a compassionate human being as would all chaplains regardless 

of their particular faith.

JH: Being authentic to oneself is a key Humanist value. As a Humanist 

chaplain, I would not pray for the soldier but I would certainly help lead

the soldier in prayer, or facilitate a provision for that particular soldier’s 

religious tradition (imagine, for example, a non-Roman Catholic chaplain trying to give extreme unction!). Assuming the Humanist chaplain 

is trained in institutional ministry, they should have a working understanding of the religious traditions and beliefs of the soldier well enough 

to be able to help them reflect on them. Again, this is effective pastoral 

care-giving where it empowers the person who has come for help, rather 

than disempowering the person by taking on a role of “religious superiority or authoritarianism.” Besides, it would be inauthentic to the Humanist 

chaplain to be praying something anyway, and the last thing I’d hope 

the non-Humanist would see is the Humanist being false or engaging in 

“tokenism” as a form of “religious placebo.”

GE: If a soldier deeply wanted to pray then a humanist chaplain would 

do whatever he or she could to help that soldier to pray in the way that 

the soldier wanted. So a humanist chaplain could help a soldier look up 

or study what kind of prayer he or she wanted to recite. A humanist chaplain could be well educated about what kinds of prayers soldiers might 

want to say and again be able to help them recite that or look through it. 

A humanist chaplain could help a soldier find somebody to pray with in 

the way he or she wished. A humanist chaplain might not choose to consult, pray for, or with that soldier in exactly the same way that he or she 

wished, because the humanist chaplain himself would have a conviction 

to say what he or she believes and believe what he or she says, but that 

person could do a wide, wide range of things to facilitate the prayer of 

the soldier that was committed to praying.

EK: Stay with him and if possible search for a Christian chaplain. If not 

available ask a Christian military [person] to pray. 

Val: 5c. How would a Humanist chaplain conduct an invocation?

JT: First a note. Some Christians have been offended at Humanists who 

offer an “invocation” because we are “invoking” no god. So as we go 

forward, we may choose to offer an “inspiration” (or a “reflection” rather 

than a “benediction”). But we would rely on our theistic counterparts to 
101

choose their comfort level because either term would be ok for a humanist.

But the direct answer is that we would offer inspirational words applicable to the situation that would most likely be entirely secular and not 

even explicitly humanist. In a very real sense, believers (should) tailor 

their words and account for the audience and the situation; and a humanist would do the same.

If it were a private event, then the honoree would choose a chaplain 

that could meet the honoree’s wishes (which in some cases might be a 

humanist chaplain and not a Christian.) 

The topic of ceremonial deism and prayer at official government functions is more of a political topic, but suffice it to say that everyone will 

acquire better perspectives on the issue when a humanist is at the podium 

and not just an unbroken line of Christians.

RB: That’s like asking a Catholic priest how he would conduct an incantation or spell. It’s not part of their repertoire. A Humanist chaplain might 

offer inspiring words or a thoughtful message, though.

JH: In short, I don’t think they would. Invocation? Invoking what? God? 

Animist presence out of a leaf? I somehow think that a Humanist doing 

this would actually cause problems and offend people: Humanists and 

theists alike.

In the various funerals I have conducted since leaving “the parish,” I tend 

to use silent reflections in place of an “invocation.” However, I also try to 

be as inclusive as possible, and if I know there are people of certain religious traditions there, I ask them to pray within themselves in whatever 

way is most meaningful and relevant to them. For instance, at my fatherin-law’s recent funeral, during the moment of silence and reflection on 

his life and its achievements, I knew there were Christians who were 

present. I asked them to use this time to remember his life and to give a 

prayer of thanksgiving for being able to have friends, for being able to be 

known to others and so forth. This way, I didn’t completely overlook the 

diversity within the funeral’s attendance, but as my father-in-law wanted 

a religion-less funeral, it was respectful to his wishes without cutting out 

people.

I suppose, though, that if I was in a situation that was a private gathering 

like a funeral of a Muslim (as an example), I’d find someone from within 

that community to lead the others in whatever their tradition says is respectful and appropriate. I can’t exactly say an Islamic dua’a if I’m not a 
102

Muslim, so, as a good facilitator, I’ll find someone who is, out of respect. 

Not only is this respectful to the religious needs of the people, it’s also 

good public relations for Humanism as effective and considerate caregivers because we do care about the feelings of people and do not wish 

to give the wrong impression that we disrespect or denigrate religion, as 

that is not what we stand for.

GE: I do those all the time, and Humanist chaplains do those all the time. 

An invocation can very easily be a non-theistic call to a diverse group of 

people to reflect on and be faithful to that which is of ultimate concern to 

each one of us and to all of us as a whole. There are just so many ways 

– whether through poetry, or prose, or meaningful music, or through 

silent meditation, silent reflection – that a Humanist chaplain can – and 

really do all the time – can help a diverse group of people to reflect and 

be inspired by that which is most important to them. I’ve done this for interfaith groups of hundreds even thousands of people many times before 

and heard really just nothing but gratitude from people that weren’t sure 

if there was anybody that could say anything that would be meaningful to 

a diverse audience. Because nowadays, when you’re talking about young 

Americans, you just know – you look around at a crowd of young Americans and you know, wow, there are Christians, there are Jews, there are 

Buddhists, there are Hindus, there are Muslims, there are agnostics, there 

are atheists, and humanists, and spiritual people. Who is going to get up 

in front of all these people and say something that’s going to help us all 

feel good – to feel calm, to feel reflective, to feel a sense of meaning and 

purpose? And I would suggest that a Humanist, by saying something 

that acknowledges the difference between the people, but called on their 

common humanity, may be able to do that particular task just as well as 

anyone in the world.

EK: Inapplicable

Val: 5d. How would a Humanist chaplain give a blessing?

JT: I’m not sure I understand the context exactly, so please clarify if I 

don’t hit it. 

The military and military commanders should never require a blessing. 

But commanders do occasionally invite a chaplain to bless something, 

and the chaplain does so according to their personal faith tradition. 

Humanists would do the same. Our action would most likely be 

inspirational words with no implication of divine oversight. Again, this 

is no different than what a naturalistic Buddhist or UU would do now. 

If there were an official government blessing text, a humanist chaplain 
103

may be willing to deliver that (though it seems like such secularized 

government prayers offend religion). 

In any case, the bottom line is that chaplains are never required to perform a “religious” act that violates their conscience, and a blessing would 

always be within that sphere and the chaplain would opt in or opt out just 

like any Christian or Jewish chaplain would now.

RB: “Blessing” can be used in many different contexts. In addition to the 

literal consecration, it can mean giving thanks, a measure of happiness, 

or approval. Despite the context, a Humanist chaplain would offer a secular option for the occasion.

JH: Again, in short, we wouldn’t. Similar to my answers in 5c, above, 

I would find someone from within that tradition who would. On the flip 

side, though, there is nothing wrong with changing a “blessing” to a 

moment of celebration, especially if it is to mark a special event or date, 

such as a wedding, anniversary, promotion, etc. Again, drawing on my 

previous work as a trained Christian minister, “blessings” are a ceremony 

of recognizing some important event, but covered with some theological 

words. Seriously. . . think about it: births, naming ceremonies, confirmation, first Communion, baptism (whether infant, adult or se-baptism), 

weddings, funerals, “rededication” ceremonies . . . all of these ceremonies are marking special rites of passage in life and have been glossed 

with some religious words, symbols, actions/rituals, etc. to make them a 

“blessing.” Take away the religious overtone, and what do you have? . . 

. important events in human life. Different cultures recognize and celebrate them in different ways, bar the theological discourse surrounding 

these events. 

GE: There are a couple different pieces of the answer to this question. 

Number 1, for if a soldier truly wanted a religious and theistic blessing 

on a house or a meal or whatever, then a humanist chaplain would help 

facilitate that in the same way that – say a soldier was a devout orthodox 

Jew but really liked the Catholic chaplain and didn’t have access at that 

moment to an orthodox Jewish chaplain. I think that the Catholic chaplain could help that soldier to either feel a sense of meaning or purpose 

around his meal or his home or whatever it was, but wouldn’t be able to 

say the exact prayer in the exact way that would give that soldier a sense 

of fulfilling his exact religious belief. It’s sort of similar with a Humanist chaplain, where if I was serving and an evangelical soldier wanted a 

blessing, I’m not going to go there and say the Lord’s prayer, but I might 

go and help that soldier find somebody who could say the exact prayer 
104

that they wanted in the exact way that they wanted. And I would have 

training and knowledge of how to help that soldier look so that he didn’t 

feel that he had to look around alone for the right person to give him the 

exact blessing that he wanted. With that being said, there’s also another 

way to look at blessings which is: there is a great deal that one can do for 

most people in terms of saying meaningful words that help a soldier to 

reflect on the meaning of his or her experience. So sometimes a blessing 

can simply mean a deep reflective expression of the significance of a 

moment, the significance of a symbol, the significance of a meal, anything like that. There are words of comfort that can be offered, there are 

words of inspiration, there are words of praise and acknowledgement that 

are just as available in short poetic form to Humanists as to a religious 

chaplain.

EK: We do not give blessings, we wish people good luck

Val: 5e. How would a Humanist chaplain participate in an ecumenical program such as a Thanksgiving service?

JT: It depends on whether the organizer and the event are interested in 

nontheistic diversity. If we’re invited to offer our kind of invocation/

inspiration, then most likely we would participate. If the intent is to only 

include those who pray to a god, then we would respectfully do something else that day.

The important thing is to ensure that such services are properly labeled 

as god-only or for everyone. There is a pervasive misconception in the 

military that prayers to a god include everyone, and it’s not true.

And it’s not outside the realm of possibility that we might have a humanist Thanksgiving service that includes readings from the time about 

humans overcoming hardship, thanks being giving even through times of 

suffering, negative stories of exploitation and discrimination, the reasons for violent conflict, and how it affects humanity today, for example. 

There would be time for contemplation and reflection, potentially songs 

and rituals to commemorate the time, but prayer wouldn’t be part of 

our program. (In the military context, we would avoid dwelling on our 

perceptions of how prayer and religion affected the human condition at 

the time.)

RB: First, I wasn’t aware that Thanksgiving was ecumenical. So let’s use 

a Christmas program, instead. Then I ask, how does a Muslim participate 

in such program? How do you participate in Ramadan? Hopefully, you 

do so by respectful acknowledgement and, when appropriate, the enjoyment of the rites and traditions of different religions. I often reflect on 
105

the enjoyable experience I had at the bairam during Eid al-Adha with the 

Egyptian Army in Afghanistan. I would like to think chaplains, too, enjoy 

such collegial opportunities.

JH: The wonderful thing about ecumenism is that it is an opportunity for 

Christians to stop bickering with each other over theological differences 

and start to focus on what they have in common. Too much of the history 

of Christianity has been about who believes what and who follows 

whom, rather than the “spirit” of the message. The Jesus of history is, in 

my opinion, a different man than the Christ of faith and if he was alive 

and able to read about the history of Christianity he’d probably say, 

“They didn’t get what I was saying, did they?” Although not a Christian, 

Humanists have every reason to be at an ecumenical celebration. Talk 

about social work that the groups have done together. Maybe they’ve 

done something like Habitat For Humanity, or something with a soup 

kitchen for the homeless, or raised money for flooding victims. Focus 

on the work of collective labour and the Humanist chaplain can provide 

strong encouragement and praise for the communities who have worked 

together. Make the message clear that collaborative work accomplishes 

more than fragmentation. Here is a perfect opportunity for the Humanist 

chaplain to also join the club and put a positive light on Humanism’s 

values and ideals for the benefit of others, just like it’s a similar message 

(though we know it’s for different reasons, but let’s overlook that in 

this circumstance) within the reasons behind the organized theistic 

religions. In other words, take the theme and human/communal values 

of the program, and jump in with all you’ve got! Work together to bring 

about some beauty into the lives of people who feel humiliated and on 

the fringe of society. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. 

This ethic of service to others is what it’s all about anyway, and bridges 

between various communities could really be cemented with such a 

service if done sensitively and properly. 

Do you know what would really throw a curve ball?...a joint effort with 

something like Humanists and Muslims raising money for Red Crescent 

to be sent to Djibouti or Bangladesh. Detractors would say, “But it’s Red 

Crescent. Aren’t they Muslims? Doesn’t their 2% zakkat go to this?” 

And a thoughtful Humanist could reply, “Yes, and your point is? It’s 

all going to a good cause, and that’s to eliminate suffering somewhere. 

We’re really grateful to our Muslim friends to bringing to our attention 

how we can bring some relief in Dhaka because our community doesn’t 

have any official contacts there and we feel that the Red Crescent’s work 

and service there is vital. Hey, does UNICEF, Goodwill, or Christian 
106

Aid have any people there who could help us ALL make sure that the 

money gets distributed where it would do the most amount of good? We 

appreciate the combined work of everyone who has felt compelled to 

do something about this problem.” Bipartisan lines crossed; 2 religious 

traditions enjoying each other’s company whilst working for a common 

cause of goodness; Humanism remaining “neutral” and being the catalyst 

for collaborative work and mutual understanding: it’s a huge win-winwin situation.

GE: 

Val: I think you already answered that.

GE: I think so. Its something I do and that happens all the time.

EK: Perfectly, he or she can explain what [it] means to be thankful and 

tell about the origins of this day.

Val: 6. What needs do a non-religious population have that religious 

chaplains cannot meet?

JT: This is really a complex question, but I’ll try to be short, and I can 

elaborate more later. First though “nonreligious” can be a confusing 

term. The excluded demographic are “nontheists” and the proposed fix 

(among many others) is “humanist chaplains.” The term “religious” has 

various uses in various situations by various people, so it’s best not to use 

it without clear definitions about what it means. Other terms, nontheist, 

humanist, god, etc. are clearer.

Humanist chaplains deserve inclusion on their merits for the chaplaincy. We shouldn’t have to justify our existence. Why do we need women 

leaders in corporations or African Americans in the police department? 

Diversity is valuable and in particular, diversity helps inform all those 

other people who don’t share that diversity trait. The explicit inclusion 

and recognition will measurably improve the support given by the 5000 

non-humanist chaplains who will then 1) know they have to support humanists equally and 2) will have someone “on the inside” to call.

And humanist diversity is still within the scope of the chaplaincy because 

we have a perspective on core values and beliefs. It’s not a hobby or a 

study session or even gender or race. Some items or more or less important but nonetheless not “chaplain” work, but humanism is within that 

scope.

http://militaryatheists.org/news/2012/04/playing-favorites-what-beliefs-should-chaplains-support/
107

RB: I have spent many hours in discussion with various Army chaplains 

while applying to become a Humanist lay leader and more recently, 

when trying to change my official records to reflect that I am a Humanist. 

During all of these discussions, I had to labor to explain what Humanism 

is. Not one chaplain had been taught formally or taken the time to teach 

themselves what it means to be a Humanist. In my experience, chaplains 

find Humanists an unwanted competition to their belief systems and offer 

little more than passive aggressive resistance to our efforts at recognition. 

How can these same chaplains provide guidance to Soldiers seeking to 

understand what it means to be a Humanist when they don’t know and, 

as I suspect, are unwilling to learn and are repulsed at our very existence.

JH: The need to be left to think and believe what they wish without 

external interference. As a non-theistic person, the last thing I would 

“need” or even want from a religious person is to tell me some tosh about 

“god’s plan for my life” or “I know what you need, salvation in the name 

of our lord and saviour Jesus Christ,” and so on and so forth. Please, save 

the salvation talk for someone else who will give you the time of day. 

But if I’m lonely and need a friendly face and warm ear, let’s talk. If I’m 

worried about my wife or my step-son’s future, we’ve got a deal at the 

discussion table. This is, of course, assuming that the theistic chaplain 

comes from a background where proselytizing others is a theological tenet (as not all religions have a “Great Commission” as found in the Gospel 

of Matthew).

Likewise, for nominally non-theist religions like certain strands of Buddhism, or even groups like Temple of Set, Satanism, Zoroastrianism, and 

so forth, it’s always edifying to learn from them and to have their experiences and outlooks enhance our own. But, at the end of the day, if I want 

to discuss some of the deepest existential things with others from my 

own perspective, I want to go to the non-theist chaplain. Say I’m a Humanist chaplain and someone comes to me because their baby is seriously ill and they want to know my opinion about whether or not the infant 

will go to purgatory, or if there is such thing as an “age of accountability” 

or maybe the family is heavily-Calvinist and thinks they’re already part 

of “the elect.” I can have tons of love and compassion for the family. 

Maybe my own life’s experiences are such that I can personally identify 

with them about their baby because I had a similar experience. Maybe I 

have sat with that person for hours on end, helping them keep in contact 

with home, or maybe I’ve been in the hospital with the baby and the 

mother as we’ve waited to hear from the physician. There is a ministry of 

presence that I can provide for them, but to answer that question and to 
108

do so truly from the perspective of their faith tradition?!??...I’d do more 

harm than good. Now, reverse that situation, and you’ve got an answer 

to your question! My closest friends, ironically enough, are some Sikh 

granthis, a few rabbis, a Methodist lay minister, and an Anglican bishop. 

I’d follow these people anywhere, because of the closeness of our hearts 

and minds. But, despite our love for each other, we all know there is a 

limit that they cannot cross, and likewise, vice versa if their faith communities were to approach me on similar terms for similar reasons. So, 

what would we do? Refer! And that’s what any effective and competent 

institutional minister would do.

GE: I would say again, its sort of like what needs does a religious population have that a non-religious chaplain can’t meet? I think that there 

is a need – sometimes we experience need to have a community experience facilitated by a person who not only understands our community 

but also identifies with it. And it’s turning and leading and facilitating 

it. I’ll give you an example: I had a student once whose brother died of 

cancer and everybody that knew him knew he was close to his brother, 

and I came up to him and gave him a hug and I said to him, “I’m so sad 

to hear about what happened to your brother. It’s such a tragedy and it’s 

unfair and there’s nothing I can possibly say to make it better, but I care 

about you and everything I heard about him just suggests that he was just 

a wonderful, wonderful person.” And he said, “I can’t believe you’re just 

about the first person I’ve spoken to all day who hasn’t said something 

like ‘he’s with God now’ or ‘you’ll see him again in the next life.’” And 

he’s just been boiling over after all these remarks with all these people, 

who are well intentioned, who were telling him exactly what he didn’t 

want to hear, and were almost making him feel that if he didn’t accept 

their worldview that he couldn’t mourn properly. He was just so relieved 

to be comforted from a specifically non-theistic, humanist perspective. 

And sometimes it’s really important to have people who are trained in 

that perspective who can go to a soldier or a person and comfort them. A 

psychologist might be able to give them a humanistic or non-theistic perspective, but my sense is they’re not roving around the base looking to 

see who is feeling bad and who is feeling good and how they can connect 

one soldier with a group of others to help them support one another. And 

that’s what a chaplain does. A chaplain actually goes out and actively 

looks for people who are in need of some guidance and either facilitate it 

him or herself based on their training or tries very hard to put people who 

are in need of some guidance and support in contact with others who can 
109

help them reflect on what they need at this moment. And again, a psychologist just can’t do that the same way.

EK: Explain life from a natural point of view, search for meaning by human conditions, tell stories about values from Greek and Roman philosophers, marry homosexuals, talk about abortion without prejudice, talk 

about euthanasia without prejudice.

Val: 7. What else can the Army do to better accommodate the 

non-religious population?

JT: Other than humanist chaplains and lay leaders? Humanists should 

be consulted in training development in the areas of Spiritual Fitness, 

relationship counseling, suicide counseling, hospital accessions, official 

records/dog tags, equal opportunity, and general chaplain training, just 

off the top of my head.

http://militaryatheists.org/advocacy/spirituality/

RB: Approve Humanist as a religious preference in our military records.

JH: Could I suggest that the Army be honest with itself to truly recognize the existence – and growing numbers – of those who self-identify as 

“atheist” and “Humanist.” This means that the Army has to stop giving 

gloss to the rights and needs of the non-theist community and give them 

something real, and not a bag of beads to keep them happy and quiet. 

As a Humanist myself, the Army must also come to terms that there are 

others like me who are quite comfortable, at the least, and inviting and 

welcoming to the LGBTQ population and that we will recognize and celebrate their relationships as equal to heterosexual ones. As a Humanist, I 

do not tolerate any form of discrimination, especially when the law says 

that “X is discrimination,” and therefore, rules and regulations regarding 

fair play and equal treatment must be followed . . . and the military needs 

to take these rules and regulations seriously and earnestly instead of 

whenever it’s either convenient or supportive of the majority (who has already enjoyed the benefits of “fairness”), or when a minority group takes 

notice and raises it as a cause for concern.

GE: Besides Humanist chaplains? Because I do think to a certain extent even beginning the process of admitting one Humanist chaplain or 

making it possible for somebody who might be a well-trained Humanist 

chaplain to serve in the armed forces – even that could be a significant 

moment for some soldiers who would feel that finally they have some 

option – finally there’s something there for them that they could potentially be served by – even that they could be acknowledged in that way – 
110

would be significant to a lot of soldiers that even though they themselves 

might not be on a base with a Humanist chaplain, I think that it would 

be at least a little bit significant to some of these people to know that the 

Army considers their worldview, their life stance to be legitimate. Which 

often it can feel to people that the institutions that they’re a part of do not 

consider their beliefs and their values to be legitimate. So there’s that and 

then stopping any and all instances of discrimination or by their active or 

passive discrimination against people who have Humanistic beliefs. In 

other words, stop coercing them; stop belittling them. Recognize verbally 

that their beliefs and values belong in the same conversation as the other 

beliefs and values that the Army recognizes and upholds.

EK: Start with humanist chaplains, give information, come to the Netherlands and see how we are organized.

Val: 8. How would the Army Chaplaincy have to change if Humanists were appointed to serve as Chaplains?

JT: The need for reform already exists because humanists and other 

nontheists are already in the military. Allowing for a humanist chaplain 

would hopefully open the door to other reforms, but the need already 

exists whether or not there is a humanist chaplain. I guess they’d have to 

approve an emblem for humanists (the happy human) but that’s basically 

nothing.

RB: I don’t think they would have to install new bathrooms or drinking 

fountains. But holy water containers might need to be properly labeled 

to prevent inadvertent burnings. Seriously, since the Chaplaincy already 

contains non-theistic members such as Buddhists, change would be little 

more than a new patch for Humanist Chaplains. 

JH: First and foremost, it would have to be transparent in its policies, as 

it would be clear that people would call them on things if they backedaway from what is the right thing to do. As mentioned before, it would 

have to stop with the appeasement language and actually put its money 

where its mouth is by a concrete support to non-theists through the appointment of a Chaplain. Funny thing is, to my understanding, the rules 

and regulations are there for a “level playing field” of equality, but there 

are some who are not even allowed on the team who is on the playing 

field. Hmm. . . . It isn’t the players’ fault, it isn’t the game’s fault, so it 

must be. . . . 

GE: I don’t think it would have to change very much. I can tell you that I 

don’t think that the Harvard chaplains had to change very much because 

they’ve had a Humanist chaplain amongst them for the past 40 years. 
111

Other groups of chaplains where Humanists have joined, I really don’t 

think they changed things very much. One of the things we have on our 

campus is a non-proselytizing agreement that chaplains sign that says 

that while we are serving on this campus and serving this population, 

we will not attempt to convert anyone from one religion or lifestance to 

another. And so I do think that humanists would be opposed to active 

proselytization within Army context, and I guess I would say that I don’t 

think that’s what chaplains should be in the Army for. My impression is 

that Army chaplains are not there to be converting or actively proselytizing soldiers to one particular faith group or lifestance. That’s something 

I think they would need to consider, but I don’t think you even need 

a Humanist chaplain to be present in order to make that point. I think 

there’s plenty of people who value Army Chaplaincy and also value the 

separation of church and state and are disappointed when they hear Army 

chaplains engaging in proselytization. I think that there are evangelical 

and other Christians who are against proselytization who are disappointed if they ever hear of Army chaplains proselytizing. And in a sense all 

the chaplains would have to do to welcome a Humanist chaplain is to 

affirm their own – I would hope – value of pluralism.

EK: Open minded, do not see them as a danger or not worthwhile, 

positive ground to work together, respect the humanist lifestance and see 

them as equal.

Val: 9. What one or two top issues would arise (if any) in having both 

religious and non-religious chaplains serving together?

JT: Nothing different than Jews and Muslims or Mormons and Pentecostals. Nothing different than the current reality of theistic and nontheistic 

Soldiers who already serve together. That’s not to say there would be no 

issues, but any potential issue is already being handled (that’s not to say 

well-handled).

I will elaborate here that there would be a good opportunity to have a 

two-sided discussion with respect to religious issues. For example, some 

Christians (I’d say others but it’s ALWAYS Christians even if it’s only a 

minority) proselytize or at least very much want to proselytize. Whatever 

your feeling on the matter, we can agree there is a lot of media visibility 

and angst about this issue. And the point is that only Christians want to 

proselytize so essentially only Christians are being criticized for improper religious speech/expression.

With humanist chaplains and more visibility and activity among humanists and nontheists in general, the other side of proselytism – denigration 
112

– will be more visible. Christians will occasionally feel their beliefs are 

denigrated. A chaplain in Alaska posted an article in his official capacity 

relying on and promoting the derogatory concept that there are no atheists in foxholes–we lack conviction. He was officially allowed to post 

that article within his personal rights. That was a bad decision, but that 

was the decision from military leaders. In the future, a humanist might 

speak out against the efficacy of prayer or the existence of heaven. I 

should hope we can avoid that, but it’s likely to happen. At that time, we 

can look at not just proselytism but also denigration of religion and put 

fair restrictions on both kinds of speech/expression about religion. I think 

that will be a step forward.

Also see policy changes I helped implement at USAFA:

http://militaryatheists.org/news/2011/07/air-force-academy-makesstrides-in-religious-respect/

RB: I strongly suspect that mature professionals can avoid loud and disruptive arguments over the existence of God that results in violent riots 

throughout the military. Some chaplains may leave the service though; 

especially those who already feel their religious principles were compromised by allowing openly gay service members. If so, the Army will only 

be stronger without such intolerance.

JH: Again, none really. I’m saying this because I personally do not see 

any issues arising. HOWEVER, I would be willing to bet my last Great 

British red penny that people would create “issues” such as, “It’s going 

to make the morale of the troops plummet” or “God will strike us down 

in furious wrath. . . .” or “Nostradamus or Pope Whoever predict that this 

is a sign of the antichrist,” so it will just whip-up fervour and frenzy. I 

imagine that there would be an upshot of complaints and concerns being 

raised at the onset. But then again, wasn’t that what happened when 

American schools finally followed the law regarding racial integration? 

(Love and respect to you, Bobby Kennedy!! You and your Presidential 

brother had some serious courage to back up Revd. Dr. King like that!!!!)

I also think that it would open people’s eyes to what truly are their responsibilities and rights within the military and that those who have been 

silenced these many years will feel empowered to speak-up:

Person 1: “I don’t want to hear the prayer go over the tannoy on the 

ship.” 

Person 2: “Well, you’re going to because it’s the way it’s always been.” 

Group: “Hi. Actually, we find this offensive and we are going to take a 
113

stand on this issue. Please be courteous about this so we don’t have to 

start filing paperwork. That’s not what this should be about.” 

Another issue, though it’s a non-issue to me (I’ve lived away from America for a long, long time now and I have a lot of questions about why 

“issues” are “issues,” but that’s just me): it might actually foster some 

understanding between theist and non-theist communities – you know, 

tear down some walls and open up the channels of communication. I do 

have morals, just not the god-talk behind them. I do believe in ethical 

living, just without some diatribe of stewardship/khalifa etc. I want to see 

harmony in my community – local, national and global – but not because 

I think some cosmic brownie-point tally is being created with my name 

on it. I do not impale children on spikes nor do I hold evil séances on the 

weekends. I am not against religious believers, and I believe that working alongside religious chaplains would help educate them to see that I, 

and other non-theist people, are not the amoral or immoral “heathens” 

that we are often made out to be. Just because we do not believe in some 

Supreme Deity, does not make us less human, just more Humanist.

GE: There would be an opportunity and need for more dialogue about 

what it means to be religious and non-religious. I can’t imagine there 

would be anything else that would arise.

Val: Now are you saying religious and non-religious in the way I’m 

defining it?

GE: What I’m saying is that if you have Humanist chaplains serving 

along side the current kind of chaplains that exist in the Army, then I’m 

sure this would stimulate additional conversations about what it means 

to be a humanist – what it means to be a religious believer, but I don’t 

think anybody would have to change who they are in order to have those 

conversations.

It reminds me of – like in the national football league. They just had 

this young man who came out as a gay football player and people have 

these discussions – what issues would arise in the locker room? If a gay 

football player were ever to be playing alongside straight football players 

– but what people forget in that example is that the player already played 

an entire season with his entire team knowing that he was gay. And not 

only did he win defensive player of the year in the top division in college 

football, but his team had its best season in many, many, many years. 

And they all knew that he was gay. And I would just draw that analogy 

to a humanist chaplain in the Army. I think that it would be very easy 

for most people to live alongside one another knowing that some were 
114

religious and some were not religious and some were humanist and some 

were not humanist. It happens all the time in American civilian life and it 

would happen very easily in the Army.

Val: 10. Any other input not listed above for consideration on this 

topic?

JT: (No response)

RB: American principles and values have always been a conglomerate 

of different ideas molded together through debate leading, albeit slowly 

at times, to consensus. However, the country continues to evolve toward 

more tolerant ideals and acceptance of diversity. And the Army often 

leads the way as history demonstrates with segregation, women’s equality and gay rights. The Humanist movement to gain acceptance in the 

Army Chaplaincy is but another step forward in keeping the Army on 

point.

JH: (No Response) 

GE: (No Response)

EK: In the Netherlands we successfully for 50 years [have had] Humanist Chaplaincy in the Armed Forces (see enclosure PowerPoint Presentation).

http://www.slideshare.net/ErwinAKamp/humanist-chaplaincy
115

Appendix C 

Army Chaplain Interview Questions

The following information, along with the humanist interview responses, 

was sent to the participants so they could preview the interview questions 

prior to the interview:

Please note that the term “religious” in “non-religious” instances has a 

transcendent connotation rather than simply a set of beliefs or practices. 

But feel free to discuss the term as you understand it.

1. How do chaplains support non-religious personnel? 

2. Should the Army have non-religious chaplains? Why or why not? 

3. Should the Army have non-religious DFGLs? Why or why not? 

4. The Chaplain Corps had to adapt with the addition of Muslim, Buddhist, 

and Hindu chaplains; how would the corps have to change with the addition of an Atheist or Humanist chaplain? 

5. How could the Army better accommodate the non-religious population? 

6. Would you conduct a non-religious ceremony for someone, such as a 

baby naming ceremony, a funeral, or a divorce ceremony without making 

any religious references? 

7. What one or two top issues would arise (if any) in having both religious 

and non-religious chaplains serving together?

8. Any other input not listed above for consideration on this topic?

117

Appendix D

US Army Chaplain Interview Responses

Interview questions and associated responses as asked by the Author (Val) to the following US Army Chaplains during the time they 

served in the positions listed:

Chaplain (COL) Ronald Thomas (RT) Command Chaplain for the 

Combined Arms Center, Ft. Leavenworth, KS (Transcribed face-to-face 

interview, Ft. Leavenworth, KS)

Chaplain (COL) John Read (JR) Command Chaplain for the Southern 

Regional Medical Command; served as Director for the Center for World 

Religions (Responded in writing through email)

Chaplain (LTC) Doyle Coffman (DC) Deputy Command Chaplain for 

the Installation Management Command, Ft. Sam Houston, TX (Responded in writing through email)

Chaplain (MAJ) Seth George (SG) World Religions Instructor at the 

Command and General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS (Responded 

in writing through email)

Chaplain (CPT) Jonathan Fisher (JF) Chaplain for the Joint Regional 

Correctional Facility, Ft. Leavenworth, KS and facilitates a non-religious 

discussion for inmates entitled, “Men of Reason” (Responded in writing 

through email)

Chaplain (CPT) Thomas Dyer (TD) Army’s first Buddhist Chaplain 

(Transcribed telephonic interview, edited by interviewee)

Val: Please note that the term “religious” in “non-religious” instances has 

a transcendent connotation rather than simply a set of beliefs or practices. 

But feel free to discuss the term as you understand it.

JR chose to respond to the interview request with separate remarks from 

the interview questions. His response was as follows:

JR: As I’ve looked at the questions and the Humanist/humanist responses, I would like to respond a little differently, if that is okay. In light of 

my experiences in MEDCOM, DACH-SFM, Director for the Center 

for World Religions, what has become clear to me is that this has to be 

addressed from the framework of religious advisement, and by focusing 

on the religious factors that impact the operational environment: Leaders, 

facilities, ideologies. I don’t in any way discount who they are and what 

they believe; however, these three points are related to not just the ability 
118

to perform and provide, but our capacity for internal and external advisement around religious factors.

First, we ought to consider questions concerning Humanist authoritative 

leaders and the texts relied upon to provide and promote humanist values 

that serve to sustain the living, care for the wounded, and honor the dead. 

We understand that the Chaplain Corps does not exist for itself; it exists 

for the Commander to achieve the mission through the commander’s 

RSP [Religious Support Plan]. We don’t exist to validate ourselves, but 

to care for others. The salient point being on what authority or by what 

authority does one exercise a Humanist vocation? Where does the Chaplain Corps go to understand the authority by which the Humanist serves? 

Who is informing the humanist chaplain? Self-informed? What kind of 

authority does a Humanist exercise to facilitate core capabilities (provide 

and advise)? Only personal? Or is he/she one part of a corporate entity? 

And what text or texts serve to identify with the Humanist corporate 

entity and who are the corpus leadership?

Secondly, where does a Humanist assemble to nurture a Humanist vocation? In the library? Are there facilities or physical structures that humanists visit to inspire humanism?

Thirdly, this point may be intertwined with the first, but what are the 

distinct statements of humanism that inspire vocation in the Army? What 

are the ideological concepts that inspire people to act rightly? Can a 

humanist also be a wiccan high priest? What are the distinctions and how 

does one identify him/herself as a Humanist beyond self-declaration? 

What are the discernible symbols, creedal statements, texts, gestures that 

express the humanist ideals? How can the Army supply system provide 

Humanist stuff? What might be given to Soldiers that assist in achieving the commander’s intent? How does a Humanist integrate into Army 

cultural milieu?

I think we have to consider the religious factor framework in any/all 

dialogue.

Val: 1. How do chaplains support non-religious personnel? 

RT: Our mandate is to provide or perform. The definition you use is 

where we get into all personnel have the right to the free exercise of 

religion – whatever that is to that person, their interpretation of that, and 

we have a mandate by the Chief of Chaplains, by the Army, by Congress 

to provide or perform for the free exercise. So if we can’t perform it for 

them personally, then we need to assist them in finding the resource to 

accomplish their desire.
119

DC: Chaplains provide confidential counseling to all Soldiers and their 

Families, religious or non-religious. I know from the discussions that 

many of the non-religious (Humanists or Atheists) would make the claim 

that chaplains cannot provide counseling without invoking religion. Both 

in my Army Chaplain Military training, Army Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) training, and Seminary training, I was personally taught to 

address people with respect of where they are personally with respect to 

God, religion or non-religion. One issue that is brought to the frontline 

of discussion is can a chaplain provide a non-religious marriage? Some 

chaplains have and will provide non-religious types of civil marriages. 

I personally have provided names of individuals (Justice of the Peace) 

who can provide these types of non-religious ceremonies or civil unions/

marriages. 

SG: We support non-religious personnel in a variety of ways through 

counseling, serving as an advocate for a Soldier to his supervisor, advising various leaders in the command about religious issues or issues of 

morale and morals on occasions. Sometimes the non-religious personnel 

is the command team and the advisement to that command team should 

be to advise them on a variety of sensitive matters to include killing and 

the sanctity of life in the face of the enemy. Non-religious personnel 

come to various programs and retreats sponsored by either chaplains or 

commands such as Single Soldier retreats, Marriage retreats, family day 

activities, Battalion and Brigade Balls/Formals. We participate in various training or command ceremonies as requested by the command such 

as Memorial Ceremonies, Causality Notifications, Resilience Training 

events and suicide training. There are also opportunities for us to participate in FRG [Family Readiness Group] meetings and activities, educational programs for young Soldiers and specific duties like that of a Jump 

Master. All of these activities are performed with an understanding that 

at any given event or training we may, as a Chaplain, find ourselves in 

counseling sessions that require confidential communication or a conversation with a Soldier or family member who has spiritual questions or 

issues even if they have no fixed spiritual commitments. 

Finally, of tremendous importance is our willingness and ability to develop friendships within the units in which we serve. Most Chaplains end 

up wearing a number of informal hats in which Soldiers can look upon 

us as their “battle buddy,” “running partners,” an outlet for conversational relief or even as the “brother/older brother” they never had . . . some 

Chaplains are old enough to be father figures. It must also be recognized 

that there are many non-religious Soldiers that want Chaplains to be their 
120

pastors based on the friendships and conversations that develop during 

road marches, getting sick together in a C-130, etc., even though this 

“pastoral” relationship will never develop into a discipleship or times 

of public worship. Nevertheless, they are still important components of 

serving with non-religious Soldiers.

JF: Perform and Provide. One program I have established in the prison 

seeks to do this by:

• Taking their views seriously 

• Treating their views/beliefs/needs seriously 

• Engaging them 

• Providing community 

• Program involves time in the schedule for “Men of 

Reason.” Attendees are able to discuss life, meaning, purpose in the 

context of philosophy, science, religious ideas and other viewpoints. 

There is no religious dogma attached to the study and the group 

agrees to use the speaker/listener technique to hear and understand 

each other. 

Value them and treat their views with the same respect given to other 

religious ideas. 

TD: How do chaplains support non-religious communities in the army? 

From my point of view and from my experience, the chaplain does support the non-religious personnel, but not in a religious specific way. It is 

not what we are designed for – that is to serve the non-religious community. The Chaplain Corps’ purpose is to protect First Amendment Religious Rights of Service Members, perform religious services, funerals, 

and pray for the dead, dying, wounded or sick. Furthermore the Chaplain’s role is to design religious programs that meet the spiritual needs 

of Service Members and their families while in service and specifically 

while on a deployment. However, the Chaplain does provide counseling, 

leadership, and guidance for life for anyone in the Army ranks, yet so do 

other entities in the Army such as, MFLCs, NCO’s, peers, Behavioral 

Health and all the helping agencies. Therefore from my point of view, the 

Chaplain Corps’ primary mission is to provide religious services, religious education, religious specific weddings, funerals and ceremonies. 

The secondary role of the Chaplain is to be a team player and participate 

in the Army’s health and wellness programs/training and provide life 

skill counseling to anyone who seeks out a Chaplain for help.

Val: 2. Should the Army have non-religious chaplains? Why or why 

not? 
121

RT: Well obviously that is an answer that only Congress can answer. Personally, I would say we have to decide which definition we’re going to 

use for religion. We wrestle with what is the difference between religious 

and spiritual – which is where the Army has Comprehensive Soldier Fitness. Spiritual is part of your fitness domain and then religion. So those 

two terms right now in the Army are different but kindred spirits. I guess 

you can put it that way. So to answer the question, I would say no.

DC: Personally, I do not think the Army should have non-religious 

chaplains. It is helpful to understand that the primary responsibility is to 

secure the Constitution-based free exercise religious rights of Soldiers, 

Family Members and DoD Civilians. The Lawful Authority of the Army 

Chaplain Corps was challenged by a 5 year court battle. On November 

23, 1979 a civil suit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern 

District of New York by two Harvard Law students, Joel Katkoff and 

Allen Wieder. They complained that the Army chaplaincy violated the 

establishment clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution: 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The plaintiffs argued that the 

Army Chaplaincy violated the Establishment Clause. From 1963-1970 

the US Supreme Court had developed a 3-pronged test to determine 

Establishment. Only one of these three needed to be violated in order 

to create Establishment. Even though the final court decision could not 

rule on the Constitutionality of the Chaplaincy, only the Supreme Court 

could do that, it did look at the three prongs. They determined that the 

establishment clause is violated whenever the government makes a law: 

“1) whose purpose is to advance religion, or 2) whose primary effect is 

to advance religion, or 3) when there is excessive entanglement between 

government and religion.” The final court decision was issued by the 

2nd Circuit Appellate Court, New York, on 22 January 1985. The judges 

described the primary function of military chaplains as the engagement 

“in activities designed to meet the religious needs of a pluralistic military 

community.” The key word in all of this is religion. 

With that in mind, the greater question involved is a non-religious entity 

considered religious? On one hand, the Humanist Organizations meet 

the IRS standard but on the other hand they are not considered religious 

by the Supreme Court. In other court cases, the Supreme Court ruled 

that non-religious thought (Humanist Manifesto) can be taught in public 

schools because it was not religious but secular human thought. On the 

other side of the equation, biblical thought cannot be taught in public 

schools because of the establishment clause. The courts ruled in doing so, 
122

would violate the establishment clause. So the decision was that non-religious thought is not religious. Until the Supreme Court rules that Secular 

Humanism is religious in nature and cannot be taught in public schools 

because of the establishment clause, I cannot see how you can have a 

Humanist Chaplain. 

I do believe that Humanism can and should be addressed in another forum of the Army other than the Army Chaplaincy.

SG: The Chaplain Corps was designed to serve the religious needs Soldiers have for worship. This has been codified, and is a Title-10, Constitutional right. If Soldiers no longer have any need for worship services 

then we can be replaced with professional counselors, social workers, 

community organizers or event planners. The Soldier’s right and freedom 

to engage in public worship is the main issue. What I can or cannot do 

for non-religious Soldiers or those of other faiths is truly an enjoyable 

part of the Chaplain ministry and at a personal level has supplied me with 

some of my best memories of service, but it is not why the chaplaincy 

exists. With this in mind, the question I have regarding Humanist/non-religious chaplains is not about the definition of religion per-se or the 

relationship between religion and community. Conversations about the 

nature of religion could go in circles about whether a religion is a function of a given group/community, or if religion is the substance/object of 

faith. It could be argued that it is both substantive and functional. But it 

is not about these things or even if the essence of “religion” is really an 

existential projection of the human spirit or condition such as the need 

for community, or the need to worship. The chaplain’s role is not to form 

community based on discussions of philosophy, existentialism, societal needs, patriotism or civil religion, all of which may include what is 

commonly recognized as “religious” symbols or practices. Rather, the 

role of the chaplain is to be a sacramental servant or practitioner of the 

faith belonging to the Soldiers who share a similar faith. Within Christianity, the sacrament ministers to the object of the Soldiers faith, which 

is Jesus Christ. A Buddhist may lead fellow practitioners through skillful practices of meditation and mantras so that they will encounter the 

transcendent reality or to invoke the presence of a god such as Guandi or 

guide such as Guan-yin, a Bodhisattva. Each religion has its distinctive 

characteristics of worshipping what they define as “God” or “The Real.” 

As I understand Humanists, a life-stance is posited in which “Man is the 

measure of all things.” If however, “man” becomes the object of Humanist worship, and certain practices or rites become necessary for Humanist Soldiers who are facing the prospect of death and combat, then this 
123

question will resolve itself. Commanders will ask congress for Humanist 

“Celebrants” to come onto Active Duty and be combat multipliers based 

on the provisions of our Constitution. If that happens the definition and 

understanding of what a Chaplain is will change slightly, but it will still 

incorporate the understanding that Humanist Chaplains will lead groups 

of like-minded Soldiers in worship and prepare them for the possibility 

of killing, death, and its aftermath among surviving Soldiers. The Army’s 

list of recognized religions has changed in the past and it will probably 

change in the future because free exercise of religion is part of what 

makes our country and constitution unique. 

The rise of social media and the availability of the Internet should not be 

overlooked in this matter either. For many faith groups, it is the physical 

presence of a minister that is important. Only ordained priests can administer sacraments to Catholics, as is the case for some pastors serving 

protestant denominations. Perhaps I need to be corrected, but it is my 

understanding that Buddhist monks are the ones who build a mandala to 

invoke the presence of gods or Bodhisattva’s and then dismiss them at 

the conclusion of the ceremony. Therefore, on-line sermons or Facetime 

chats, though helpful and encouraging, do not meet the scope of theological needs of corporate worship for Christians and perhaps not for 

Buddhists either. Granted, not every battalion has a Catholic priest. Not 

every Protestant Soldier has a Protestant Chaplain, nor every Jewish Soldier a Jewish Chaplain. In addition, some Christian denominations do not 

place equal emphasis on Baptism or Communion and therefore, the need 

for the physical presence of an ordained priest or pastor is not as acute. 

Many faith groups can have needs met by lay leaders within a battalion 

or brigade, and some could be led in prayer through VTC. But the fact 

remains in the moments prior to combat, large numbers of Soldiers voluntarily desire to be led in some form of worship. Some desire this out of 

the sincerity of their personal faith, some in hopes of receiving good luck 

or comfort, and some are merely curious to hear what those of faith such 

as chaplains have to say. Many choose not be a part of such worship services and prepare in their own way. But the fact is there are Soldiers that 

need an ordained pastor to physically lead them in worship regardless of 

whether it is on a patrol base or during high intensity conflict in which an 

entire battalion or brigade is in combat. In those situations technologies 

fall short of both the theological expectations and necessity certain Soldiers require. Technologies aside, and more to the point, the Army has to 

consider very carefully any decision to intentionally place non-religious 

chaplains within units, who by their own creeds such as the Humanist 
124

Manifesto, do not worship a God, Transcendent Reality, or appreciate the 

possibility of an afterlife and thereby jeopardize the ability for Soldiers to 

worship according to their beliefs.

I was very aware that not everyone in my first combat experience was 

interested in worship, but the numbers grew as our combat experiences 

grew more severe. Likewise, the needs of non-religious Soldiers became 

more acute, not always for spiritual counsel, but for various concerns 

related to the dangers. I truly wish I could have been more effective in 

meeting the needs of both religious and non-religious Soldiers alike, 

and towards that end I did reach out for the helping services available in 

theatre so that a wider population of Soldiers could have their needs met. 

Still, the reality was that I deployed as a Chaplain into combat because 

Soldiers in that battalion had a Constitutional right to be led in worship 

by an ordained minister of their faith group.

If the question of non-religious chaplains was a matter of sharing rank, 

position, or various resources, having a non-religious Chaplain is not 

such a complicated issue given the trends of our society or those of other 

nations such as Holland. Likewise, if the question is about providing 

emotional support and encouragement for a particular community such as 

Humanist groups in the garrison or deployed environment, again, I don’t 

think this is that complicated of an issue. But the basis for the Constitutional provision given to Soldiers is to ensure that as many Soldiers as 

possible, have the right to a pastor willing to accept the responsibilities 

of administering the sacred rites of worship during times of war, i.e. 

bringing God to the Soldiers and the Soldiers to God. This is the essential 

identity of the Chaplain Corps and the reason clergy were requested by 

Commanders during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and all the 

major wars since. The Soldier’s right to the religious freedom does not 

revolve around rights to counsel and comfort (though we try to provide 

this as part of our calling), nor is it a right of free speech or assembly as 

civilians have and enjoy. It is a right to the free expression of religion 

which is both public and private worship with a Rabbi/Imam/Pastor/

Priest etc. Therefore, if Humanists develop their own forms of public 

worship and Soldiers develop a need for such leadership, I don’t see why 

the constitution would prevent them from having access to Humanist 

chaplains. However, if these forms of worship do not develop, I fail to 

see how the particular Constitutional provisions mentioned above are 

applied for those who do not engage in worship, and why the particular 

needs of a Humanist community couldn’t be met by designated leaders/

celebrants who already serve within the Army, or who may be contracted 
125

by the Army. Furthermore, just as the Chaplain Corps was created by 

Commanders (George Washington was willing to serve as Commander 

as long as the Continental Congress authorized a Chaplain), it is plausible that a “Humanist Corps” with a unique identity of its own could be 

developed if Commanders/Congressional leaders wanted it. Granted that 

is unlikely in the near future, but it is as possible. Another possibility for 

Humanist Chaplains to come on board would be the potential that the 

Chaplain Corps decides to codify that our primary mission is strictly to 

“Care for the Wounded, Nurture the Living and Honor the Dead.” Period. 

If this mission statement included only the vision of providing counsel, 

vacation Bible schools, church communities, Single Soldier retreats, and 

Marriage Retreats, our branch will first lose its legitimacy in the eyes of 

Soldiers and then it would lose its constitutional/legal basis leaving the 

Soldiers to have spiritual needs met through a different mechanism such 

as lay leaders, social media etc. This however is not the case; our identity 

(speaking as a Christian Chaplain) is built upon the needs of the Soldiers 

to have worship services in which the sacraments are offered on a regular 

basis

JF:

• Yes.

• It would demonstrate that the Army Chaplaincy takes seriously 

the changing demographics of American society as a whole. It would 

give truth to the idea that we, as a Corps, are an ever-evolving Corps 

responding to the demographics of American society. 

• It would provide for the spiritual needs of the non-religious in 

uniform. 

• It would help the Chaplain Corps be a more diverse and modern 

group reflecting what other armies are doing. 

• It would help current Army chaplains understand how to better 

meet the needs of their non-religious/humanist, atheist, agnostic and 

other Soldiers/families by providing an internal subject matter expert 

resource. 

• We, as a Chaplain Corps, need to be looking for new ways to 

reach out to our Soldiers where they are at rather than finding reasons 

not to. 

TD: I do not think the Army needs to endorse a Humanist Chaplain. 

I think in order for the Army to provide a Chaplain for a specific religion-that religion should meet certain criteria. For example:
126

• The Religion should have a significant historical back ground. 

The Religion should be well established for hundreds of years (Specific time maybe 200 or more year period) and is not in its infancy, 

exploratory, or establishing phase.

• The Religion should be a world-wide phenomena. Millions of 

people from different geographies and cultures practice the Religion

• The Religion should have a well-defined spiritual path that 

transcends one’s current life span. The practice and teaching of the 

Religion should address issues of the after-life for example:

- Christianity Islam and Judaism have salvation

- Buddhism has enlightenment

- Hinduism has absorption

- Earth Center has union with the elements

I do not think that Humanism has proven it will be more than a philosophical movement or a world view yet. I do not think the Army has to 

accommodate every worldview or philosophical movement under Religious Rights, specifically First Amendment Rights. However I do want to 

be clear that I support different world views and philosophies and I think 

the Army should provide opportunities for Service Members (SM) to 

meet, organize themselves in any way SMs would like to – with the exception of hate groups or socially unacceptable activities. Many different 

groups could form, for example:

• Socratic Groups

• Different Philosophies

• Quantum Mechanics or Science Groups

• Evolutionists

• Masons

• Toast Masters

• Yoga/Meditation (not religious specific)

• Nature groups

• Running or Biking groups

• Martial Arts

• Etc.

There could numerous different groups that could form, and I think the 

Army should take these types of groups seriously. Human beings need 

this type of social forming and community building. To say these groups 

are not religious and should not be covered or protected under religious 

freedom in no way down plays the importance of these types of group 

activities for human cultivation. I think at this point a Humanist group/

community should have the freedom and protection to form and develop 
127

in the Army. I just would not say a non-religious group like the Humanist 

movement should be covered by a religious Corps.

Val: 3. Should the Army have non-religious DFGLs? Why or why 

not? 

RT: That’s a harder one to answer. Distinctive Faith Group Leader 

is typically a religious organization. If we’re having a non-religious 

DFGL, should those individuals have someone? Yes. Who is responsible for overseeing DFGL is another question. Now the Army might say, 

“Chaplains, you have responsibility for both religious and spiritual and 

to ensure good order and discipline along with the commander because 

we support the commander on that.” Just like religious accommodation 

goes to the commander, we only advise. So yes they should have that 

opportunity and some form of leader oversight. But is it the Chaplaincy 

that should be the responsible for that? I’m not sure yet. I think that is the 

future according to how our population is arranging itself now. We advise 

on both internal and external aspects of religion. So if I use your definition of religion, then yes the Chaplaincy would be responsible because 

that includes both internal and external advisement to the commander. 

Therefore, we would have oversight of religious activities within the 

Army. And that’s according to the DoD directive. So yes they should, 

yes it should be monitored for good order and discipline, and yes there 

should be someone assigned in the Army to support the commander in 

making those decisions.

DC: Distinctive Faith Group Leaders (DFGLs) are an exception to policy 

when a Chaplain is un-available to perform a particular religious or 

sacramental function of a particular faith group. A definition of a DFGL 

is a non-chaplain religious worship leader. Two things have to be addressed: 1) The religious aspect as mentioned in question two applies. 

Can the Supreme Court say that Secular Humanism is religious and will 

the laws change to remove humanistic thought from being taught in 

public schools as a part of the establishment clause? If not, they cannot 

be an exception to replace a Army Chaplain. 2) The primary function of 

a DFGL is for worship. Humanist DFGLs do not provide worship. They 

will provide instruction in the Humanist Manifesto. Again, I think there 

is a place in the Army for such instruction, but not through the Army 

Chaplaincy that is entrusted to ensure the free exercise of religion. I understand that they hold to certain humanistic ceremonies but that does not 

make them religious. The Masons have ceremonies that are conducted in 

their organization but do not consider themselves to be religious. 
128

SG: As I understand the broader spectrum of secular humanists, Humanists, Free Thinkers, agnostics, atheists etc . . . I don’t see any problem 

with accommodations made for a Distinctive Community Group Leader, 

or a Distinctive Humanist Leader. Perhaps, Humanists desire to use the 

term Distinctive Faith Group Leader to underscore their faith in humanity or a particular ethic, but generally speaking, the term Faith carries 

different understandings of a transcendent reality or God. 

JF:

• See above [JF refers to Question 2].

• Beyond that, every Soldier needs to have their religious needs 

met. DFGLs exist to help the chaplain perform and provide. 

TD: I do not think the Army needs to have non-religious DFGLs for the 

reasons covered in question 2.

Val: 4. The Corps had to adapt with the addition of Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu chaplains; how would the Corps have to change 

with the addition of an Atheist or Humanist chaplain? 

RT: Well then we would obviously have to change some of our language 

and our traditional mottos. For God and Country. Obviously that would 

have to change, because that doesn’t represent everybody now. It does 

represent everyone who is currently endorsed – I think I’m correct on 

that. But if we have a humanist or a secularist or non-theistic person, 

we’re going to have to change. It won’t change how we function, but it 

may change in some of the language of how we describe ourselves. 

DC: Adapting to change has always been a strong point in the Army 

Chaplaincy. Overall, the Army Chaplain Corps has always adapted. The 

change that would have to take place for a Humanist Chaplain or DFGL

would have to start with the recognition of Secular Humanism as a religion. There would have to be understanding on both the current chaplains and non-religious chaplains that the free exercise of religion cannot 

be subdued or it will not pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court and the 

legitimacy of the chaplaincy will be at stake.

SG: If a substantial number of Humanist Chaplains joined the Corps 

there could be a number of changes which would include changing the 

motto of the Corps (For God and Country) to something else, the training topics at CHBOLC [Chaplain Basic Officer Leadership Course] 

and the various Division and Brigade level trainings that take place 

would necessarily reflect how ministry to Humanist Soldiers and family members should be addressed should Humanist communities with 
129

leading Celebrants develop. Nevertheless, I am unsure how this would 

be different than “providing” for the needs of other faith groups that 

are currently recognized in the Army. I think the main issue would be 

teaching Humanists the nuances of what worship is and how to provide 

for those needs, especially if Humanist Chaplains focus their training 

in the counseling field and do not have civilian training and experience 

in pastoral care. For example, as the chaplain carrying the duty phone, 

I recently had a Soldier call me at 5:35 AM for prayer. He didn’t want 

counsel or encouragement, he specifically wanted prayer right then. This 

is not an insurmountable problem for any chaplain of a different faith 

group, but it requires an understanding of worship. On two separate occasions Muslims came to me for prayer. In both cases they knew I was a 

Christian and came to me specifically for prayer even though it would be 

a Christian prayer. They asked for prayer, I asked for permission to pray 

as a Christian and they agreed. Soldiers often come and desire ministry 

at that moment in time, from their chaplain, and much of the time these 

are moments in which, according to their beliefs, they need prayer, not 

conversation or counsel, and in deployment situations referral to pray 

with other chaplains may not be an option. In my opinion this would 

potentially be a substantial change in the expectations Commanders and 

Soldiers have of the Chaplain Corps.

JF:

• I do not believe it would. 

• We are already a collegial and pluralistic organization. This 

would simply expand that to humanists. We already need to be conscious of diversity in the corps – nothing much changes here. 

• I see the problem at the individual chaplain level not the institutional level. If Senior leadership provide the model of pluralistic 

collegiality, younger chaplains will not have a problem. 

TD: I think the Corps would just have to make some space. They would 

have to not have a negative or emotional response to a humanist group 

or a humanist chaplain. They would just have to be professional. They 

would have to allow for humanist services within the chapel. And they 

would just have to practice these words that we use a lot about tolerance 

and just making space and supporting financially. So really I don’t think 

it would be anything different.

Val: What about the motto For God and Country?

TD: Well the motto really doesn’t work for me. When I was interviewed 

by Lauren Green with Fox News, she said, “The chaplain’s motto is to 
130

bring Soldiers to God and God to Soldiers. Does that work for you?” I 

said it doesn’t work for me as a Buddhist. She said, “What is your motto?” I said my motto is to help relieve suffering. And as a Buddhist, I’m 

doing my faith practice if I am actually helping relieve suffering in any 

context or environment that I’m in. So the motto didn’t change when I 

came in, and it hasn’t really impacted me in any negative way. I personally, being the first Buddhist chaplain, I’ve had really great experiences 

and negative experiences based upon the individual I came in contact 

with. So that was really personality driven. I had some really wonderful 

experiences with chaplains by far. I’ve had a lot of professionalism and 

a lot of help. But since 2008, I’ve had passive aggression toward me and 

some negative remarks and uncomfortable discussions and things like 

that. So I would expect if a humanist chaplain was endorsed that he or 

she would have something similar to that, and they would find that by 

and large the chaplain corps would be professional. They would provide 

and perform, and they would accept the chaplain as a colleague. But I 

would expect that chaplain would also come across some fundamentalist 

activity and a few things along the way that would not be pleasant. But 

that’s kind of human nature. So I would expect that chaplain to experience that too. And as a low density chaplain, I talked to some Rabbis, a 

couple of Muslim chaplains, and the Hindu chaplain I had contact with, 

and they say similar things that I say, which is by and large, it’s been 

good, but speaking in the vernacular, I’ve been kicked in the head a few 

times. So I would expect that if we got an earth centered chaplain or a 

Wiccan chaplain or a humanist chaplain, their path would be similar. 

Val: Would we have to change the motto?

TD: The motto did not change when I came in and it has not negatively 

affected me, therefore I do not think it would have to change. 

Val: 5. How could the Army better accommodate the non-religious population? 

RT: Well part of the definition of leadership is always to look for ways to 

improve the organization. So that’s something we should be doing all the 

time. Have we not done it as well? I don’t know. I don’t know if we have 

ever done a survey that says “how have your religious or non-religious 

needs been met, or your spiritual needs been met?” And we have the 

GAT [Global Assessment Tool]that determines how they view themselves, but maybe that’s not so much how they view the organization. So 

how would we improve it? Well it goes back to the DFGL. Obviously 

they can’t just organize themselves in groups on their own without some 
131

sense of oversight. So there should be a policy on how to establish that 

small group or setting or whatever they call themselves. I guess a gathering. We went through the initial part with the Wiccan and so now we 

have ways to accommodate them and how we’re going to handle that, so 

it’s just a matter of identifying what are the groups out there that want to 

self-identify as a group or assembly. And once we do that, then the Army 

needs to set a policy on what is within the boundaries of good order and 

discipline. What is within the scope of free exercise? And with the Army 

culture of diversity to ensure that they’re not being set apart or identified 

as not part of the Army. To me that’s the biggest thing – without discrimination.

DC: I believe the Army can accommodate non-religious groups through 

the Army’s Resiliency Program and MWR. This would allow them the 

freedom to express Humanistic thought within the Army Community.

SG: If organizations of Humanists begin forming on military posts 

around the country, I’m sure the Army will provide support just as they 

have done for Wiccan groups. Nevertheless, the purpose of the Army is 

not to accommodate every single form of society in which Soldiers could 

possibly organize. The purpose of the Army is to fight and win wars. If 

Humanists support this mission based on a demonstrated need for specific rites or forms of worship, I’m sure some form of accommodation will 

follow; if the purpose of Humanist communities is to meet and discuss 

various issues of life, I doubt much will change. To put it in stark terms, 

commanders have long known that many Soldiers draw courage to face a 

fight if they have opportunities to worship and lay their concerns of fear, 

anger and love before the God they worship. This is part of why Chaplains are “Combat Multipliers” in the eyes of commanders. If Humanists 

have similar worship needs in order to prepare for combat, then the government should pay attention to addressing those needs. 

JF:

• Immediately create a path to non-religious DFGL

• Seriously take on the task of provide and perform. 

• Take the views/beliefs/needs of the non-religious seriously. 

• In my experience, any non-religious Soldier is the same as a 

Soldier with a religious view and wants to interact with a leader with 

the same paradigm – just knowing Humanist Chaplains exist in the 

Army would help those Soldiers. 

TD: I do not think the Army has to accommodate a non-religious 

population. I think “non-religious” characterizes an aspect of many 
132

Service Members (SM), but it is not a category that reflects social 

forming or grouping. There are many people who believe in ghosts, 

but the Army does not have to identify them as “Ghost Believers,” 

and provide some special accommodation for them. However if a 

group of SMs wanted to form, organize, and gather themselves under 

a paranormal group, the Army should accommodate their rights to 

assemble. For this reason, the Army could promote SM’s right to 

assemble, form, organize, and gather for any beneficial reason they 

chose. This of course, would not include hate groups, terrorist cells, and 

other socially unacceptable behaviors. For example, the Army could not 

support of group of SM’s who wanted to form, organize and gather as 

a “Porn Group.” There are limitless ways human beings can assemble 

(form, organize, and gather) in socially beneficial and productive ways. 

I think a Humanistic group could do this as well. These groups that form 

could be Command or CSM governed. 

Val: 6. Would you conduct a non-religious ceremony for someone, 

such as a baby naming ceremony, a funeral, or a divorce ceremony 

without making any religious references? 

RT: That came up here recently in a conversation with someone. I know 

what I believe in and I’m pretty secure in that now by the challenges you 

go through in the Army. I think as a human being, if that person were in a 

situation where they just wanted something to help them get through the 

grief or the pain, I would honor it as long as it did not violate my theology. I couldn’t do anything that said, “God does not exist.” I couldn’t 

do anything that would put in question how they now perceive me and 

my beliefs. But as a human being, yeah I probably would help them, but 

talk to them. I think that’s the key – the dialogue of, ok you know what I 

represent. “You’re asking me” so I think after the dialogue, they may see 

things differently that may not require me to do that anymore. Or it may 

open the door for further dialogue later on. Not proselytizing, but discussions. 

DC: No, as a chaplain, I am here to provide religious support not non-religious support. There are chaplains that have performed some civil marriages. Others have provided the support through a Justice of the Peace. 

SG: I am not prohibited from doing so on a case by case basis, but to 

intentionally and repeatedly do so would be disingenuous to all parties 

involved. For this reason, I always explain what I can and cannot do 

during various ceremonies, and what these events signify to me as a 

minister of the Gospel.
133

JF:

• I would help them find a way to do ceremony which respected 

my religion and theirs. This might mean helping them find a humanist group in the community. 

• I do this already for all my Soldiers regardless of religion. Nothing changes for me. 

TD: Sure, I would perform a non-religious ceremony for individual 

SMs. I would do this because of my Buddhist practice that teaches what 

is good and right in the world are activities that produce happiness and 

reduce suffering. I think performing a service like this would do just that.

Val: 8. What one or two top issues would arise (if any) in having both 

religious and non-religious chaplains serving together?

RT: As far as the chaplains are concerned?

Val: In the Corps. I was thinking like in a UMT meeting. Like how we 

open in prayer, I was thinking, what would have to change?

RT: I guess we could have a time of meditation. For those who want to 

pray, we’ll get together and pray. It’s like “should we have public prayer 

or not” now at a command function? I predict in the future, that will not 

happen anymore. It’s becoming too complicated. Just on a side note. This 

is how our society is changing. This mural is at the national cemetery in 

Hawaii and it’s hanging on the mural for the Pacific. (CH Thomas shows 

me a picture.) And it talks about the whole issue in the Pacific was? (he 

waits for my answer) the problem basically was?

Val (reading): A theological and a spiritual . . .

RT: Redundance. That’s how we used to see the world as our nation. 

We couldn’t put that up probably today. But that doesn’t mean that as 

chaplains on active duty as we are today, our responsibility is to still care 

for those who are looking. There is a great book called Days of Anguish, 

Days of Hope about the Bataan Death March and chaplains who were a 

part of that. One in particular, Robert Preston Taylor, eventually became 

the first Chief of Chaplains of the Air Force. And what his presence 

meant to those who were going through that unbelievable nightmare in 

their lives. I’m not saying that a non-religious or a non-spiritual chaplain 

could or could not do that, but what do they have to offer? It’s just something that comes inside. For the humanist it’s inside yourself. Or it could 

be connected to your fellow man. So the question again?

Val repeats the question
134

RT: You and I have probably faced this already. People of different 

denominations, can we share the pulpit together? Can we do programs 

together? We’ll work that out. I think the only issue would be mainly 

what you brought up that when we get in a group together, we’re going 

to offend one of them if we say, “OK we’re going to pray” when that’s 

not a part of their tradition. But are they offending us by not allowing us 

to pray? So we got to work that out. And I think the best way to do that is 

to bring everybody in and say OK, how are we going to conduct ourselves in a way that is not offensive but also allows for understanding? 

We’re not in competition against each other. We’re in collaboration with 

each other to accomplish the mission for which we have been placed on 

active duty. I think we look too much for “here the sky is falling!” and 

we haven’t even had a dialogue yet with an individual. So that would 

be my answer. Let’s not look for issues – we’ll deal with it after – if it 

happens, and then we’ll start a dialogue.

DC: 1) The issue of “Separation of Church and State” because of the 

Supreme Court’s decision to allow “Human Manifesto” to be taught in 

public schools. This would cause an outcry in society of double standards 

which would be hard to keep out of the Army. 2) Congress would have to 

change Title 10 to include non-religious accommodation. 

SG: There could be confusion among Soldiers as to what the purpose of 

having both types of Chaplains would be. There could also be mistrust 

between religious and non-religious chaplains just as there was mistrust 

between liberal and evangelical chaplains in the Navy during the 1990s. 

The mistrust resulted in a lawsuit in which evangelical chaplains successfully argued they were the victims of discrimination and denied promotion based on their denominational affiliation. I am not stating that this 

type of discrimination would happen, but that we must guard against it, 

for failing to do so would ultimately hurt the Soldiers who deploy. 

JF: No more issue than a Christian and Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/Buddhist. 

Pluralism celebrates diversity and others viewpoints. We are a pluralistic organization. We would not be the Chaplain Corps without the other 

religions represented. We need each other to accomplish our work. 

TD: I do not think any issues will arise. 

Val: 8. Any other input not listed above for consideration on this topic?

RT: I always go by the point of view of whose needs are being met? 

We’re not here on active duty to meet our personal needs. We’re here 

to meet the needs of the Army family. One of the things I think that has 

to be considered is what percentage of the population is asking or has 
135

a need for this? And when we assign a non-theistic chaplain to a unit, I 

think they are the ones who are going to have the hardest challenge than 

the rest of us. One of the first things you learn in all of this is becoming 

an insider, which basically means being accepted and trusted. If you look 

at the traditional unit today, what percentage claims some aspect of religion in their life? Who claims at least organized religion? Who claims, 

“I’m religious but just not organized?” And then who says, “I just don’t 

have any belief system at all?” Can that person do the same thing as a religious chaplain today? Can that chaplain who is non-theistic accomplish 

the same thing for the unit? I don’t know if you’ve ever been assigned to 

a unit where they’ve had a Buddhist or Muslim chaplain. The key to their 

success will be how well we as a Corps and Army support them as they 

go through the challenge to be accepted. This is a matter of Congress 

deciding what that’s going to look like. But I do think about the Soldier. 

Is it easier for me as a religious person to adapt to become something for 

somebody who is not religious than it is for a non-religious chaplain to 

become something that is going to meet the need of a religious Soldier 

who is dying? I don’t know. But that’s something I think we need to 

carefully consider – whose need is being met? And what does it take to 

meet the needs of everybody? Can they provide or perform as well as a 

chaplain who is theistic in their view of the world?

DC: The Secular Humanists have been offered other avenues to provide 

support to non-religious Soldiers. Why have they refused to support these 

efforts?

SG: My final comment is simply to contrast the legal role of a Chaplain 

to lead Soldiers in worship with the opportunity for a Chaplain to be of 

value to Commanders and Soldiers alike. These two issues should not be 

confused. The legality of the Chaplaincy is grounded in the Constitution 

and Title 10, but the source of these documents’ legitimacy is the fact 

that Chaplains speak to the deepest spiritual needs of Soldiers facing 

the hardships of combat and its aftermath. In other words, the ultimate 

legitimacy lies with the needs of the Soldiers. This need is fundamentally 

met by leading Soldiers of a similar faith in corporate worship of God 

together. This does not conflict with pluralism and the rights Soldiers of 

different faiths have to their free exercise of worship in the absence of 

a Chaplain representing their particular faith group. If you will permit 

a few anecdotal stories: In one occasion, I knelt down with a Muslim 

Soldier on a road south of Baghdad after an IED strike, and we each 

prayed for those who had been killed in our own way. The Soldiers killed 

were not Muslims, but the Soldier who prayed wanted to pray for those 
136

Soldiers out of his sense of compassion and desire to honor them. On 

another occasion I provided for a Native American to conduct his final 

rituals for another Native American who had been killed by a sniper. We 

each engaged in the worship of God in our own way which was distinct 

but in line with our traditions and the needs of the Soldier just killed. I 

could imagine similar situations with Humanist lay leaders or Celebrants. 

These are just two examples in which the Constitutional rights of those 

Soldiers who had been killed were honored and recognized, these acts 

of worship were also public demonstrations of faith as members of the 

respective platoons watched. They were, in my opinion, appropriate and 

special demonstrations of pluralism in which both the Islamic Soldier 

and Native American were free to engage in what was personal and public forms of worship, which was compelled by their faith traditions. My 

role was to provide for those opportunities. In other occasions, more traditional ceremonies were held that were voluntary in nature which gave 

Soldiers the opportunity to participate directly in the worship service 

which included receiving sacraments. 

My point is that these are examples in which Chaplains are positioned to 

perform and provide their role of engaging in unique forms of worship. 

These types of services should not be confused with the value added 

that Chaplains bring to the pastoral care of Soldiers or advisement to the 

Command teams. For example, Chaplains are combat multipliers, an 

unfortunate label, but there are two reasons for it. The main reason is because Soldiers face death but the sum total of a Soldier is not his ability 

to fight, win and either kill, die or live for his country. Instead his or her 

own spiritual welfare in this life helps to inform us of one whole identity 

and thus a critical component to religious views of these Soldiers. The 

role of the chaplain is to address this need sacramentally regardless of 

whether all Soldiers or Commanders in the unit share this belief. The 

other reason we carry the term Combat multiplier is because we advise 

Commanders and junior leaders about the appropriate use of force, or 

when to pull a platoon from one sector to be placed into another in order 

to mitigate the temptations Soldiers may have for revenge and needless 

violence. As important as this type of advisement is, it is not the Constitutional reason Chaplains are present. This is merely “value added” by 

virtue of our presence, but even so, I have the greatest confidence that 

there are others within a chain of command that can and do provide advisement of any number of issues, to include religious issues with greater 

skill than some chaplains . . . which is okay, because the legitimacy of 

the Chaplain Corps is not in advisement, it is the role of being present to 
137

lead others in worship. Therefore, any ability a Chaplain has to advise his 

Commander or gather Soldiers into a community and develop all sorts 

of programs and relationships is contingent upon the Chaplains role as 

worship leader who administers the sacraments/rites of a particular faith 

group to those Soldiers needing that specific form of religious leadership. 

JF: Here is the opinion of a 35 year old senior captain getting ready 

to become a major – like homosexuality, the rub seems to be in more 

senior leadership. As long as they provide leadership, model professional 

collegiality and positive pluralism, there will not be a problem. Chaplains 

will still come into the Army, Soldiers needs will still be met, and the 

overwhelming majority of Chaplains will still be Christian – just like the 

nation we serve.

Ten years from now, Humanist chaplains will be fully integrated into our 

Corps and we’ll enjoy working with one another. We are the Chaplaincy 

for the best Army in the world. Our Army is what other Armies look to 

for leadership. We need to get out ahead of this issue and lead from the 

front in a changing world. 

Interestingly, it has been my experience, limited though that may be, 

that once I start treating my Atheist/Agnostic/Humanist/Non-Religious/

No Religious Preference Soldiers with the same positive respect I give 

to other groups, the harsh relationships disappear. As I pro-actively seek 

to understand them and their needs, give them the same energy I give 

all my religious Soldiers, and respect their views, they embrace me, my 

ministry, and, I suspect, the Chaplain Corps better. Respect to one means 

respect to all. 

This sign hangs on my door. What I find interesting since I hung it is not 

that I get more gay inmates or Soldiers but that all Soldiers and inmates 

that come into my office are willing to trust me faster and get to their 

issue faster. I guess if I’m welcoming to everyone and willing to say so, I 

must be willing to welcome them too. All means all. 

No matter where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here. 

Really. I mean that. 

Liberal, Conservative, Independent, and Apathetic. 

Fat, Skinny, In-between and struggling. 

Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic, 

Pagan, Heathen, and None. 

Seeing a theme here? If I left you out, know that I include you. 

Gay, Straight, and everything in between. 
138

Church going and church avoiding. 

You are welcome here. 

As your chaplain, I make you this promise: 

I will not judge you. 

I will not condemn you. 

I will ask the hard questions necessary for growth. 

I will extend the grace of God to you. 

You are welcome into this Sacred and Safe space.

TD: I think the only thing that I would promote is Unitarian Universalists because I think what they offer, they offer a spiritual approach that 

encompasses not just humanists, but the atheists, agnostics, and someone 

who is strictly non-religious but somehow driven to some type of religious community. And then the Unitarian Universalist has a great moral 

message. They have ethical training. And I think if we were going to try 

to touch a hidden people group in the army such as atheists, agnostics, 

and humanists, the Unitarian Universalists are already there. They have a 

great history. And I mentioned before for First Amendment coverage of 

religion, I think it needs to have a history, it needs to have a large group 

of people that have benefited from it, so it’s not in the infancy stage. It’s 

not on the experimental or developmental stage. It’s on an establishment 

stage on the world scene. Unitarian Universalists say that they are the 

true American religion with many founding fathers that practiced UU. 

They’ve got some chaplain corps principals. They accommodate and 

respect all religions. They have moral teachings and they just recognize 

humanists already. So if the chaplain corps wanted to branch out, and 

explore out, and reach out, we could tap into what we already have with 

some of these Unitarian Universalists. I think that would be a very good 

approach.
139

 E 

Humanist Manifesto III

Humanism and Its Aspirations

Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 

19331

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal 

fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism – guided by reason, inspired by compassion, 

and informed by experience – encourages us to live life well and fully. It 

evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of 

thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings 

advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive 

terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe 

but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the 

following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and 

rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing 

beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in 

thought, the arts, and inner experience – each subject to analysis by critical 

intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary 

change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as 

all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might 

wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and 

are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem 

and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent 

worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom 

consonant with responsibility.
140

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of 

humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate 

our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys 

and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in 

the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage 

of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in 

times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists 

long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of 

cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively 

without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, 

and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive 

cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and 

we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human 

effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold 

the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular 

society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty 

in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed 

conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live 

is ours and ours alone.

For historical purposes, see preceding Humanist Manifestos: I and II.
141

Notes

1. Copied by permission from the American Humanist Association, “Humanism and Its Aspirations,” (2003), http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/

Humanist_Manifesto_III (accessed 25 April 2014).

143

Bibliography

Amarasingam, Amarnath. Religion and the New Atheist: A Critical 

Appraisal. Boston: ebrary, Inc. Leiden, 2010.

American Humanist Association. “Humanism and Its Aspirations.” 

2003. Accessed 25 April 2014. http://americanhumanist.org/

Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III.

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. “The Atheist 

‘Chaplains’ Ploy.” Catalyst (September 2013). Accessed 5 

November 2013. https://www.catholicleague.org/the-atheistchaplains-ploy-2/.

Cline, Austin. “Humanist Chaplains in the Dutch Army.” 15 May 

2009. Accessed 27 October 2013. http://atheism.about.

com/b/2009/05/15/humanist-chaplains-in-the-dutch-army.htm.

Cormican, Diane. “Allow Humanist Chaplains to Serve in the Military.” 

Morning Call (12 August 2013). Proquest.

Dalton, Caleb. “Square Circles, Atheist Chaplains.” Townhall Magazine, 

8 October 2013. Accessed 5 November 2013. http://townhall.

com/columnists/calebdalton/2013/10/08/square-circles-atheistchaplains-n1719056/page/full.

Defense Suicide Prevention Office. “Suicide Warning Signs.” Accessed 

24 April 2014. http://www.suicideoutreach.org/AboutSuicide/

WarningSigns.aspx.

Department of the Army. Army Regulation (AR) 165-1, Army Chaplain 

Corps Activities. Washington, DC: US Government Printing 

Office, 2009.

Department of the Army. Army Regulation (AR) 165-1, Army Chaplain 

Corps Activities. Washington, DC: US Government Printing 

Office, 2015.

———. Brief History of the Army Chaplaincy. Washington, DC: Office 

of the Chief of Chaplains, 2004.
144

———. Field Manual (FM) 1-05, Religious Support. Washington, DC: 

US Government Printing Office, 2012.

Department of Defense. Department of Defense Directive 1304.19, 

Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments. 11 June 

2004. Accessed 3 April 2014. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/

corres/pdf/130419p.pdf.

———. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1300.17, 

Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military 

Services. Incorporating Change 1, Effective 22 January 2014. 

Accessed 9 March 2014. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/

corres/pdf/130017p.pdf.

———. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1304.28, Guidance 

for the Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments. 

Incorporating Change 3, Effective 20 March 2014. Accessed 

16 October 2013. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/

pdf/130428p.pdf.

Dolan, John P. The Essential Erasmus. New York: Penguin Books, 1983.

Edwords, Frederick. “What is Humanism?” Accessed 14 October 2013. 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/humanism.

html.

Epstein, Greg. Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People 

Do Believe. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

Fisher, Matthew. “Padre Doesn’t Need Religion: Humanist Chaplain in 

Kandahar Says She’s Open to Helping Anyone.” The Ottawa 

Citizen (2 May 2009): A.8.

Flew, Anthony. There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist 

Changed His Mind. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

Flynn, Tom. “Humanist Chaplains in the Military: A Bridge Too Close?” 

Free Inquiry 31, no. 6 (October/November 2011).

———. “Religious Humanism: Is It Dead, Alive, or Bifurcating?” Free 

Inquiry 33, no. 6 (8 October 2013). Accessed 12 October 2013. 

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/3565.
145

Gop.gov. Legislative Digest. Accessed 12 October 2013. http://www.gop.

gov/bill/113/1/hr2397.

Grant, Anne. “Yearning for Community Is at the Heart of the Humanist 

Tent.” The Providence Journal (6 December 2009): D.6.

Griffith, Justin. “Fort Bragg’s MAJ Ray Bradley Seeks Recognition 

for Humanists.” 14 February 2012. Accessed 27 October 2013. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rockbeyondbelief/2012/02/14/

fort-braggs-maj-ray-bradley-seeks-recognition-for-humanists/.

Hallowell, Billy. “Non-Theist Soldier Wants US Army to Officially 

Recognize Humanism as a ‘Faith’ Group.” The Blaze. 8 February 

2012. Accessed 14 October 2013. http://www.theblaze.com/

stories/2012/02/08/non-theists-push-u-s-military-to-recognizehumanist-soldier-as-distinctive-faith-group-leader/.

Hamilton, Meghan. “No—A Ministry Community Is Not A Place For 

Humanists.” 17 October 2013. Accessed 15 April 2014. http://

www.occuworld.org/news/357908.

Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of 

Reason. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.

Humanist Chaplains.org. “What is a Humanist Chaplain?” Accessed 27 

October 2013. http://www.humanistchaplains.org/whatisit.

Humanist Community at Harvard. “Greg Epstein,” Accessed 17 April 

2014. http://harvardhumanist.org/greg-epstein/.

The Humanist Society. “About.” Accessed 8 March 2014. http://

humanist-society.org/about/.

Johnson, Kathleen. “Secular Chaplains and a Tale of Two Service 

Members.” 29 July 2013. Accessed 10 October 2013. http://

www.patheos.com/blogs/rockbeyondbelief/2013/07/29/secularchaplains-and-a-tale-of-two-service-members/.

Kolenc, Antony Barone. “Not ‘For God and Country:’ Atheist Military 

Chaplains and the Free Exercise Clause.” University of San 

Francisco Law Review, vol. 48 (Winter 2014): 395-456.
146

Lamont, Corliss. The Philosophy of Humanism. New York: Frederick 

Ungar Publishing, 1965.

Larson, Neil. “Atheist Chaplains and Other Fabulous 

Oxymorons.” Idaho State Journal (24 August 2013). 

Accessed 27 October 2013. http://search.proquest.com/

docview/1427470656?accountid=28992.

Mehta, Hemant. “House Votes Down Amendment Allowing Nonreligious Military Chaplains, but 150 Democrats Voted for It.” 

Patheos. 14 June 2013. Accessed 3 November 2013. http://www.

patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/14/house-votesdown-amendment-allowing-non-religious-military-chaplainsbut-150-democrats-voted-for-it/.

Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. “Chaplain Outreach.” 

Accessed 12 October 2013. http://militaryatheists.org/chaplain/.

———. “Military Religious Demographics.” Accessed 8 April 2014. 

http://militaryatheists.org/demographics/.

Murry, William R. Becoming More Fully Human: Religious Humanism 

as a Way of Life. Hamdon, CT: Religious Humanism Press, 2011.

Nauert, Charles. “Desiderius Erasmus.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of 

Philosophy (Winter 2012). Accessed 26 October 2013. http://

plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/erasmus/.

Office of the Chief of Chaplains. Connections: The Chief of Chaplains 

Strategic Roadmap. Accessed 11 October 2013. http://www.

chapnet.army.mil/pdf/strategic_map.pdf.

Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project. “‘Nones’ on the Rise.” 

9 October 2012. Accessed 4 April 2014. http://www.pewforum.

org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-religion/.

Quinn, Jeffery. “Alien, Orphan, Enemy: Religious Accommodation for 

Non-theists in the United States Navy.” DMin Project Paper, 

Wesley Theological Seminary, May 2013.
147

Rosen, Richard D. “Katcoff v. Marsh at Twenty-One: The Military 

Chaplaincy and the Separation of Church and State.” 

International Society for Military Ethics. Accessed 15 March 

2014. http://isme.tamu.edu/ISME07/Rosen07.html.

Schiller, F. C. S. Studies in Humanism. London: Macmillan, 1907.

Scruton, Roger. “The Future of European Civilization: Lessons for 

America.” The Heritage Foundation (8 December 2015). 

Accessed 17 December 2015. http://www.heritage.org/research/

reports/2015/12/the-future-of-european-civilization-lessons-foramerica.

Secular Coalition for America. “Secular Americans Applaud 173 US 

Reps, Stood Up to Anti-Humanist Chaplain Amendment.” 24 

July 2013. Accessed 3 November 2013. http://secular.org/news/

secular-americans-applaud-173-us-reps-stood-anti-humanistchaplain-amendment.

Shane III, Leo. “The Would-Be Navy Chaplain Who Doesn’t Believe 

in God.” Stars and Stripes. 29 July 2013. Accessed 10 October 

2013. http://www.stripes.com/news/the-would-be-navy-chaplainwho-doesn-t-believe-in-god-1.232494.

Smith, James A. K. Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Grand Rapids: 

Baker Academic, 2007.

Speckhardt, Roy. “The Humanist Tax Exemption.” 7 February 2007. 

Accessed 14 October 2013. http://www.americanhumanist.org/

hnn/archives/?id=283&article=1.

Stedmen, Chris. Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with 

the Religious. Boston: Beacon Press, 2012.

The Humanist Hub. “Upcoming Events.” Accessed 10 January 2016. 

http://www.humanisthub.org.

Thompson, Parker C. From Its European Antecedents to 1791: The 

United States Army Chaplaincy. Vol 1. Washington, DC: Office 

of the Chief of Chaplains, Department of the Army, 1978.
148

Torpy, Jason. “Humanist Chaplains in the Dutch Military.” 29 March 

2013. Accessed 14 October 2013. http://militaryatheists.org/

news/2013/03/humanist-chaplains-in-the-dutch-military/.

———. “Interfaith Leaders Support Humanist Chaplaincy.” 5 August 

2013. Accessed 13 October 2013. http://militaryatheists.org/

news/2013/08/interfaith-leaders-support-humanist-chaplaincy/.

———. “Mass Invites to Church Unchecked in Military Units.” 12 

March 2013. Accessed 13 October 2013. http://militaryatheists.

org/news/2013/03/mass-invites-to-church-unchecked-in-militaryunits/.

———. “Playing Favorites: What Beliefs Should Chaplains Support?” 

23 April 2012. Accessed 13 October 2013. http://militaryatheists.

org/news/2012/04/playing-favorites-what-beliefs-shouldchaplains-support/.

US Army Chaplain Corps. “US Army Corps Chaplain History.” Chapnet. 

Accessed 3 April 2014. http://chapnet.chaplaincorps.net/index.

php/about-2/history/.

US Department of Veterans Affairs. “National Cemetery Administration.” 

Accessed 29 April 2014. http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.

asp.

Vine and Fig Tree. “Secular Humanism is a Religion.” Accessed 22 

September 2013. http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/

humanism_religion.htm .

Wilson, Edwin H. “Humanism’s Many Dimensions.” In The Humanist 

Alternative, edited by Paul Kurtz, 15-19. Buffalo, NY: 

Prometheus Books, 1973.

Winston, Kimberly. “Yale’s Humanists Lose Bid for Campus 

Recognition.” Religious News Service. 7 October 2013. Accessed 

17 April 2014. http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/07/yaleshumanists-lose-bid-campus-recognition/.
149

Youngblood, Lauren Anderson. “Secular Americans Applaud 173 US 

Reps, Stood Up to Anti-Humanist Chaplain Amendment.” 24 

July 2013. Accessed 27 October 2013. http://secular.org/news/

secular-americans-applaud-173-us-reps-stood-anti-humanistchaplain-amendment#sthash.AgQwJGc4.dpuf.

Zeiger, Hans. “Why Does the US Military Have Chaplains?” Pepperdine 

Policy Review, Vol. II, (2009). Accessed 27 October 2013. http://

publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/policy-review/2009v2/why-does-usmilitary-have-chaplains.htm.


A CGSC Press Book

Published by The Army Press