{"id":31237,"date":"2015-03-18T00:15:46","date_gmt":"2015-03-18T03:15:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=31237"},"modified":"2016-11-25T00:31:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T03:31:53","slug":"commander-denies-chaplains-religious-accommodation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2015\/03\/18\/commander-denies-chaplains-religious-accommodation\/","title":{"rendered":"Commander Denies Chaplain’s Religious Accommodation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Chaplain (LtCmdr) Wes Modder was relieved of his duties<\/a> for expressing, during private counseling sessions, beliefs consistent with his endorsing agency. He appealed the dismissal, and he also filed a formal request for religious accommodation, seeking the freedom to<\/p>\n

discuss matters of faith, marriage, family, and human sexuality from a Biblical perspective when the issue is relevant to pastoral counseling.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Shockingly, his request was denied<\/a> — sort of.\u00a0 Navy CAPT J.R. Fahs wrote a rambling response (PDF)<\/a> that addressed the reasoning behind firing Chaplain Modder\u00a0but\u00a0never actually said whether the Request for Religious Accommodation was approved or denied.\u00a0 Rather, CAPT Fahs implied the request was unnecessary:\u00a0 <\/p>\n

You have always had and continue to have the ability to observe and practice the tenets of your religious faith…<\/p>\n

I find that your ability to express your religious beliefs during pastoral counseling has not been restricted or substantially burdened.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Contradictorily, CAPT Fahs then says Modder had been fired because he was not “sensitive” [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

You have the duty to be sensitive<\/strong> to the religious, spiritual, moral, cultural, and personal differences of those you serve. Your inability to comfort and counsel in a manner that was respectful of the counselee<\/strong> while maintaining dignity and professionalism…led to you being relieved of your duties.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At first glance, this appears to be a different stance than CAPT Fahs’ original letter. Remember, Fahs had charged Modder with, among other things, telling someone that homosexuality was “wrong.” That was a content<\/em>-based allegation, not a “sensitivity”-based one — or so it might appear to an outside observer.<\/p>\n

It would seem CAPT Fahs is taking the interesting position that saying “homosexuality is wrong” is, prima facie,<\/em>\u00a0“insensitive.”<\/p>\n

In other words, Chaplain Modder expressing the content<\/em> of his faith tenets is “insensitive” and therefore actionable.<\/p>\n

To be clear, it is likely few people would defend Chaplain Modder if he had been a “jerk,” or if that had been the accusation of the dismissal — but it wasn’t. CAPT Fahs alleged that the expression of religious beliefs<\/em> on marriage and sexuality — the content<\/em> of what Chaplain Modder was saying — was the issue.<\/p>\n

To say that Chaplain Modder’s religious expression<\/em> during counseling has not been “restricted or substantially burdened,” as CAPT Fahs did, while simultaneously saying he was fired because his religious expression<\/em> during counseling was not “sensitive” is a stunning self-contradiction.<\/p>\n

The Navy seems to be floundering in its efforts to justify the attack on the chaplain. They are required<\/em> to say the Chaplain can exercise his faith — because to say otherwise would be tantamount to an admission of violating the law.\u00a0 But they then have to figure out how to justify the adverse action; in this case, they have chosen to say the content<\/em> of his expression was “insensitive.” The Navy is telling the chaplain he can only say things in counseling if they are inoffensive to the counselee. It is a worthy effort to defend the punishment, but it must ultimately fail.<\/p>\n

A chaplain has a recognized obligation to be a representative of his faith, even as he serves in the military. It is both understood and expected<\/em> that a military chaplain may counsel from his faith perspective. To demand otherwise appears contrary to both common sense and the statements of the Department of Defense to date.<\/p>\n

It will be interesting to see what the Navy, institutionally, finally says about Chaplain Modder’s case.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n