Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
>                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
>================================================================================
>Note 223.19                  Specific Ways to Peace                     19 of 19
>CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Centerpeace"                      10 lines   6-AUG-1991 15:00
>                                  -< pointer >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Re: .18
>
>Actually, Alfred, the aspect of military chaplaincy brought up in 223.17,
>as I understand it, is a matter of collusion, a matter of endorsing (or
>blessing) military actions and reasoning.

    	I assumed that was their point. And as I said it does not reflect
    	reality. Some military chaplains are against all war. Others some
    	wars. They view there role as servicing spiritual needs not
    	supporting or blessing military actions.
    
    			Alfred

	For two years I had the high and holy honor of serving as a hospital
chaplain within the Penrose-St. Francis System, which is owned and operated
by the Sisters of Charity (Roman Catholic).

	While in this service, I gained no small degree of respect for the
role of the institutional chaplain (and eucharistic minister).

	I know the reactions I received from people when I was wearing that
crisp, white hospital jacket and that blue and white plastic badge that
identified me as a chaplain.  The mere presence of a chaplain has the
potential to sanctify and create meaning, if only in people's minds.

	I cannot reconcile the role of chaplain bearing the nationalistic
emblems of military rank and uniform.  Then, I cannot reconcile Schwartzkopf
having the Prayer of Saint Francis posted next to his bed, which I understand
he does.  Either the General has it wrong or I do.

Peace,
Richard

>	I cannot reconcile the role of chaplain bearing the nationalistic
>emblems of military rank and uniform.  
    
    I don't understand. 
    
    >Then, I cannot reconcile Schwartzkopf
>having the Prayer of Saint Francis posted next to his bed, which I understand
>he does.  Either the General has it wrong or I do.
    
    	I vote he has it right. :-) This is the prayer about changing what
    can be etc, right? As logical a prayer for a general as anyone. Perhaps
    more so.
    
    			Alfred

    What follows is a rather long (hopefully not boring) article I wrote on
    diversity in the military chaplaincy. I believe that current ecumenical
    trends in the chaplain corps nullify much of the good the chaplaincy
    was intended for.
    
    As to whether the chaplaincy should be done away with - well, yes and
    no. Yes in that it is no longer representative and in many ways
    injurious to the men. No in that the men need to have men of their own
    faith on a foreign post for edification and ecouragement. Yet if the
    "Yes" statement is true then the "No" statement is a hit or miss
    proposition.
    The article:
    
    It is my thesis that First Amendment rights are being denied men in
    military Chaplaincy. The present United States military Chaplain Corps
    nurtures an organizational structure which is defective. It is
    defective in that it is inconsistent with the principles of political
    and religious liberty.
     
    Diversity is generally, though not exclusively, viewed by the
    leadership of all branches of the Chaplain Corps as a necessary evil.
    Diversity appears negativistic, cynical, and injurious. Unity is the
    predominantly preferred attitude among the majority of contemporary
    chaplains in leadership positions. Unity is viewed as positivistic,
    believable, and constructive.  
     
    The military Chaplain service has instituted a structure to support
    this call for unity. The structure is better known as ecumenicism.
    Ecumenicism is the attitude that seeks to foster unity among various
    denominational and non-denominational Christians. Those who do not wish
    to participate in this ecumenical movement often find themselves forced
    out of the service. Many chaplains who do not wish to cooperate with
    ecumenicism, and those who are familiar with the military chaplaincy,
    have told me that chaplains who do not wish to participate in
    ecumenical obligations ought not to expect to remain long in the
    chaplaincy. Some are given bad reviews by chaplain leadership
    supportive of ecumenical views and are not extended. Others are so
    uncomfortable with the requirements of ecumenical participation that
    their conscience leads them to leave the military chaplain service.
    Still others, and I believe most, try to stay in the chaplaincy for as
    long as possible until they are given reasons (other than their failure
    to cooperate in ecumenicism) to leave.
     
    Reasons Why Diversity Is Believed To Be Problematic
     
    Reasons why unity is viewed as preferable and ecumenicism is imposed on
    chaplains may stem from the philosophy that diversity is a weakness,
    that it is an evidence of a lack of centrality of religious authority.
    Were these diverse elements to be unified it would enhance religious
    authority and exercise a more profound influence on the moral state of
    the military community.
     
    Another reason diversity may be viewed as a weakness is that it is
    often associated in history with factious elements. Often recalled are
    the vindictive and bloody conflicts among religious elements in such
    events as the Crusades of the 13th and 14th centuries, the intolerance
    of the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, and divisions which
    rocked the European continent in Scotland, France, and the Netherlands
    wherever the Reformed movements sprang. Diversity is associated with
    conflict and such internal dissent is not compatible with a strong
    military.
     
    One reason why unity is perceived as a strength is that men of
    ecumenical persuation are committed to the presupposition that it is
    possible to cooperate with various religious faiths without
    compromising one's own convictions. "Cooperation without compromise" is
    a foundational principle of the American chaplain service.
     
    Reasons Why Ecumenicism Is Not Beneficial
     
    Diversity has another perspective. It is an outgrowth of the principle
    of the freedom of the conscience. This was the central, underlying
    influence in what has been called "the dawn of our modern society," the
    Reformation. It first found strong expression in the Renaissance with
    its emphasis on returning to original sources Q Plato, Aristotle and
    other innovative thinkers on human liberty were studied and applied.
    The resulting Reformation liberated men to worship God as they saw fit
    and in accordance with self-evident principals of social harmony. Man
    recognized that liberty is essential for democracy to thrive.
     
    For example, the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of the believer
    allows for unity in matters non-essential while not binding the
    conscience of any man. Since the New Testament recognizes that there
    "are some things hard to be understood" it is commonly implied that
    there is room for disagreement without disrupting the church. Such
    unity in diversity is seen in the disagreement of Paul and Barnabas
    over John Mark. Their separation furthered the Gospel and did not
    hinder it.
     
    Another reason that diversity in the military community is a strength
    is that it prevents religious hypocrisy and forced conformity. The
    American chaplaincy is not a voluntary ecumenicism, but an imposed one.
    Chaplains are required to unite in certain functions with the tacit
    goal of emphasizing points of agreement and focusing on a positive
    collaboration of efforts. This is manifest in such practices as
    required ecumenical prayer breakfasts and requirements on Protestants
    of broadly diverse convictions to attend the same chapel services. It
    is also seen in the tacit requirement for chaplains to provide
    assistance to those outside of their faith group, e.g. a Protestant
    Chaplain providing Mormon literature to a soldier who asks for it. 
     
    Practices such as these communicate to the soldier, sailor, airman and
    Marine that there is no actual  religious diversity. That the only real
    real religious conviction is that there are no convictions, everybody
    is going in the same direction by different routes. This is precisely
    what ecumenical nonconforming chaplains do not  wish to communicate to
    their men. Diversity is not simply a matter of titles: "Protestant
    Services" and "Catholic Services;" there is a real  doctrinal
    divergence.
     
    Unity can be hypocritical in that it encourages conformity to the
    status quo without like conformity of conscience. Religion becomes a
    sham, a show, an arm of the will of the few in leadership and not an
    expression of the many being governed by it. Instead of a Chaplain
    standing on his sincere religious conviction he is inclined to
    relinquish it to appear more favorable to his Chaplain Corps superiors,
    to gain rank, to prevent undesirable transfers, even to remain on
    active duty. More simply, it puts him in fear of his job. Faith that is
    conditioned on temporal benefit is not faith Q it is economics.
    Ecumenical presuppositions imposed within the American Chaplaincy
    command structure and daily activities of all chaplains regulate
    religious practice. This is not in accordance with the Constitution
    which forbids the government from establishing religious practice and
    the degree to which religions must actively  cooperate with one
    another.  
     
    But more importantly, forced ecumenical conformity influences the
    Chaplain to carry on a ministry not in keeping with the common
    conscience of the faith he represents. The chaplain's endorsing agency
    is not properly able to carry on the collective convictions of the
    civilian churches they represent. Endorsing agencies are representative 
    bodies tasked with the responsibility of meeting the needs of their
    denomination serving in the armed forces. Distinctive observances such
    as opening the chapel service for a public invitation after the sermon
    to more general creeds as refraining from ecumenical ties, are
    suppressed. Suppose a Protestant chaplain does not wish to attend a
    prayer breakfast with a Catholic. None of the churches which the
    Protestant chaplain had been affiliated with prior to his commission
    required their membership to attend ecumenical prayer breakfasts. On
    the contrary, it was these church's understanding that such cooperation
    was unbiblical. Now however, as a chaplain, he is forced to attend. He
    is not representing the convictions of the endorsing agancy's
    constituency.
     
    Unity also produces a forced conformity. Faith that is forced is not
    faith Q it is force. This is similar to Calvin's Geneva which attempted
    to proscribe faith. Citizenship was synonymous with church membership.
    Since there was only one authorized church attendance to it soon became
    compulsory. A 2100 curfew, no gaming or dancing allowed, and marriages
    could only be approved by local magistrates. When Servetes came to
    Geneva to challenge this form of ecmenicism he was burned.
     
    Another reason that diversity is a strength is that it inhibits
    religious intolerance rather than promoting it. The sermon title "Tis
    Satan's plea for limitless toleration" was borne on conceptions that
    feared the advancement of falsehood. While it is not the desire of any
    Chaplain to see falsehood promoted it has the beneficial effect of
    allowing creeds to be tested. Freedom thrives in a free marketplace of
    ideas Q both right and wrong. It ought to be the goal of the American
    Chaplaincy to reflect this liberty of religious preference and not
    proscribe religious ecumenical ties on its Chaplain Corps.
     
    The duty of the church is to provide a godly citizenry for the service
    of the state. Whenever the state proscribes religious forms, such as
    the ecumenicity found in today's chaplain corps, it breeds religious
    intolerance and resulting hypocrisy and forced conformity. Dissenters
    are either forced out of this pluralistic environment or attempt change
    the structure from within. In either case the state violates
    constitutional provision prohibiting forced religious ecumenical
    convictions 
     
    Within the last twenty-five years an enormous amount of legislation
    from state and federal courts has been passed which determine what is
    an acceptable religious belief in the eyes of "public policy." The IRS
    taxes religious institutions when it finds their rules unacceptable and
    thereby strains the finances of an already underpaid faculty. The
    Department of Education exerts pressure on church schools and Christian
    homes to educate their children in state institutions. The DSS even
    takes the Christian parent to court and dictates how their children are
    to be raised. The list goes on. The point is that misinformation has
    formulated public opinion and generated legislation such as Bob Jones
    University v. United States and set a precedent for further changes in
    this nation's laws which will continue to inhibit freedom of religious
    expression.
     
    The dawn of the twenty-first century is approaching yet it has been
    over three hundred years since some twenty-five thousand Puritans fled
    England for American soil. These sought an environment where they might
    worship God without state hindrances and order their lives in
    accordance with their understanding of biblical revelation. If freedom
    of religious expression is to continue in our nation society must
    change its present attitudes towards the forms in which religion is
    expressed. Neither society nor evangelical Christianity need
    necessarily agree with that expression, but at least show the kind of
    toleration that will keep worship a matter of the conscience and not
    drive the Pilgrim and the Puritan out looking for a new world.
    
    In Him,
    
    John

Re: .3

    Alfred,

    A vote for Schwartzkopf is likely to be right (though I suspect you may
    be thinking of the Serenity Prayer).  My kill ratio is not nearly what
    his is.  The General is a clearly a greater instrument of God's peace.
    (Note 6.54 contains the Prayer of Saint Francis.)
    
    In Her/Him,
    Richard

Let me make myself clear.  Neither I nor the proponent of 223.17 (A Roman
Catholic ex-priest) favor abolishing the military chaplaincy entirely.
Rather, we propose that the chaplaincy be removed from the nationalistic
influence and control of the military and placed instead into civilian hands.

Peace,
Richard

>Rather, we propose that the chaplaincy be removed from the nationalistic
>influence and control of the military and placed instead into civilian hands.

	I don't see what the gain is. Perhaps it's because I believe that
	the military has less control over the chaplains then you believe.
	Chaplains are responsible first to their own church. Most can be
	more easily removed by their church then by the military for example.
	I do believe that civilian chaplains would have much *less* access
	to the people there are supposed to minister to. Also they will have
	less understanding of their problems.

			Alfred

> (though I suspect you may
>    be thinking of the Serenity Prayer). 

	You are right I was thinking of a different prayer.

			Alfred

According to a segment on CBS Sunday Morning, there has emerged a new
form of institutional chaplain.  Several truck stops, now called
"Travel Plazas," have a full-time chaplain on duty, which, I might
add, I consider a legitimate and valid ministry.

These chaplains are supported either by denominations or denominational
coalitions.  However, perhaps it might be more logical if the roadside
chaplaincy was placed under the auspices of the Teamsters Union.

With-tongue-in-cheek,
Richard

	RE: .9 It would seem to be a very good idea for them to have some
	formal relationship with the Teamsters or other trucking industry
	group. No tongue in my cheek.

			Alfred

    Re: Note 281.6 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
>                         -< A call for realignment >-
>
>Let me make myself clear.  Neither I nor the proponent of 223.17 (A Roman
>Catholic ex-priest) favor abolishing the military chaplaincy entirely.
>Rather, we propose that the chaplaincy be removed from the nationalistic
>influence and control of the military and placed instead into civilian hands.
>
>Peace,
>Richard
>
    
    
    	I heartily agree with you Richard!
    
    					John

    RE: .11 But why? So far no one has given any benefits that outweigh
    the overwhelming deficits that separation from the military would
    give. In fact I believe that there would be no chaplains if there
    were no military ones. OH, perhaps a few here and there but in general
    the number of clergy who could do the job, which includes understanding
    the military needs and problems as well as being accepted by military
    personnel, without being in the military are *very* few and far
    between.

    			Alfred

    PS: This is why the Police and Fire departments in most large cities
    have chaplains BTW. And yes those chaplains where uniforms and hold
    rank.

	Remember the gruesome war waged in the Middle East?
During that conflict (the effects of which continue), Garland
Robertson wrote a letter to his local paper questioning the
use of force.  So far, pretty ordinary, eh?  The difference is
that Robertson is a U.S. Air Force chaplain.
                    -----------------------
	Robertson received a sharp reprimand from his superior
for including his rank with his signature.  On official air force
stationery proclaiming the slogan "Peace is our Profession," Robertson
was informed that he violated air force regulations "prohibiting
political activities of military members."

	It is difficult for me to believe that the military is
free of hangups enough to resist the temptation to squelch the
dissenting voice of the Christian pacifist who also happens to
be a chaplain and/or prophet.

Richard

    In my view, writing a letter to a newspaper questioning the lawful use
    of force by the United States is a political act.
    
    The fact that he is a chaplain doesn't change it.  If he feels strongly
    about it, he can resign his commission and he'll have the same ability
    to write and be a Christian pacifist, if that's what he wants to be.

    Ah, yes.  That would be the solution for the situation as it presently
    exists.  Another solution is to rip the chaplaincy program away from
    the military, which I maintain is the morally right thing to do.
    
    Richard

	RE: .15 I don't see how the restrictions on a civilian would have
	been any different at all in this case. He'd still have to resign
	as chaplain if he wanted to be political.

		Alfred

    A chaplain who was not in the military would not be required to resign
    or refrain from serving as chaplain for having a letter published in
    the editorial column of the local paper.  I speak from experience as
    a non-military chaplain who has had editorials published in the local
    paper.  The military rules were violated.  Not moral rules.
    
    Richard

Note 281.16

     -< and I'm still waiting for answers to .12 but it's only been a mo >-

Note 281.12

>    RE: .11 But why?

Note 281.15

>    I maintain [that it] is the morally right thing to do.
    
    Richard

>             -< I thought you probably knew what I'd say, Alfred >-

    Nope, still don't. When I make a rhetorical question I make a point to
    be explicit about it in Notes BTW.

>    I maintain [that it] is the morally right thing to do.

    But why? How can you say that denial of fully effective pastoring
    is the morally right thing to do? I've made a case, and heard no
    rebuttal yet, that civilian chaplains can not do near as effective
    a job as military ones. So so far the only logical conclusion, given
    the lack of evidence to the contrary, is that you believe military
    people should get short changed unless they are willing to leave the
    military.

    		Alfred

re Note 281.19 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     But why? How can you say that denial of fully effective pastoring
>     is the morally right thing to do? I've made a case, and heard no
>     rebuttal yet, that civilian chaplains can not do near as effective
>     a job as military ones. 

        I think Richard made the point -- a very valid one, IMHO --
        that military chaplains cannot be as effective pastors as
        civilians since they are under strictures that limit their
        ability to speak out on moral issues.

        What is a pastor that cannot speak out on moral issues that
        are at the heart of the business at hand?  That's not a
        pastor at all!

        Bob

>        I think Richard made the point -- a very valid one, IMHO --
>        that military chaplains cannot be as effective pastors as
>        civilians since they are under strictures that limit their
>        ability to speak out on moral issues.

    Two points. One is that I believe that Richard overstates the limits
    of military chaplains. Two is that in no way has he addressed the fact
    that the limits in other areas on civilian chaplains greatly outweigh
    the limits of military ones. In short even if I bought Richard's
    argument military chaplains would still be more effective than civilian 
    ones.

>        What is a pastor that cannot speak out on moral issues that
>        are at the heart of the business at hand?  That's not a
>        pastor at all!
    
    What than is a pastor who cannot talk to people at all? Or who
    can't understand his people? That's not a pastor at all.
    
    			Alfred

Alfred,

	You know what's really amazing to me, Alfred, is that you're
the first person I've met in a long time who (besides me) thinks that
chaplains (in general) provide a truly worthwhile service.  I like that!
And I like it that you're so committed to the good chaplains might do within
the military as members of the military.

	Fact is, I cannot to respond to the particular questions you've
posed.  I cannot supply any evidence that it would better or worse for the
folks in the military if the chaplaincy were to be removed from military
authority.

	I thought Bob Fleischer articulated my thoughts and feeling extremely
well for never having spoke with me about it.  (I'm impressed, Bob! 8-})

Peace,
Richard

The following are portions of an article in the September-October issue
of _The Other Side_ magazine by John Alexander:

	"I call it the chaplains' fallacy.  [Military] Chaplains are not
hired to raise deep questions arising from their employer's main activity;
their job is to bless what their employer has already decided to do.  They
pray over whatever is going to happen next.  Then the real participants
have a yacht race, vote against aid to poor children, shoot their enemies.
The chaplains are not in the chain of command; they are an add-on to the
real activity.

	So naval chaplains advise on sexual morality in port (which includes
distribution of condoms), but in wartime they aren't intended to speak to
whether the war is just; they just aren't intended to address the moral issues
raised by their employer's central business.  Catholic chaplains are allowed
to serve Mass, of course, and evangelical are allowed to try to save the souls
of the soldiers -- because those things are not seen as impinging on the
business of the employer: killing the enemy......

	Thus military chaplains on both sides encourage their soldiers to
go kill each other bravely and well, and when their own soldiers are killed,
they try to soften the blow for the families."

Richard

        I've been toying in my mind with comparisons between military
        chaplains and war on the one hand and black preachers and
        black slavery on the other hand.

        Black preachers during the slave days used very crafty
        oblique language in order to preach about slavery.  They knew
        that they couldn't get away with a letter to the local paper.

        The situations aren't 100% parallel, especially with an
        all-volunteer force (well, signing up is voluntary -- the
        rest isn't).

        Any takers?

        Bob

>	"I call it the chaplains' fallacy.  [Military] Chaplains are not
>hired to raise deep questions arising from their employer's main activity;
>their job is to bless what their employer has already decided to do.  They

	This is a basic strawman technique. This is *not* why Chaplain's
are hired. Oh, perhaps a few military zealots would like this to be the
role of the chaplain but I have yet to meet a chaplain who share that view.
Chaplain's are hired because men have spiritual needs where ever they are.
Especially in times of no war the military needs chaplains because people
are less focused then. Chaplain's do council military who have doubts about
being in the military BTW. And they don't just council them to stay. In
fact many military chaplains spend a lot of time helping people get out.

>The chaplains are not in the chain of command; they are an add-on to the
>real activity.

	True. This is a plus as it means that they can operate outside the
chain of command and by-pass red tape. Also commanding officers have very
little authority over chaplain activities.

>	So naval chaplains advise on sexual morality in port (which includes
>distribution of condoms), 

	Sounds good so far.

>but in wartime they aren't intended to speak to
>whether the war is just; 

	Highly unlikely that civilian chaplains would get access to preach
that the war was unjust either. So issue is moot.

>they just aren't intended to address the moral issues
>raised by their employer's central business.  

	Actually I believe that to some extent they are. I believe that
chaplains serve a purpose to keep military activities within some moral
limits. Where Richard and I draw those limits may of course be different
but I believe that military chaplains serve a moderating purpose.

>Catholic chaplains are allowed
>to serve Mass, of course, and evangelical are allowed to try to save the souls
>of the soldiers -- because those things are not seen as impinging on the
>business of the employer: killing the enemy......

Two points. Killing the enemy is not the whole business of the employer.
Saving souls does often make it hard for people to kill people.

>	Thus military chaplains on both sides encourage their soldiers to
>go kill each other bravely and well, and when their own soldiers are killed,
>they try to soften the blow for the families."

	Again to promote that this is the main goal of the military chaplain
is an injustice. And I don't believe that very many military chaplains actively
encourage solders to go kill people. 

>Richard
Alfred

re Note 281.25 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> >but in wartime they aren't intended to speak to
> >whether the war is just; 
> 
> 	Highly unlikely that civilian chaplains would get access to preach
> that the war was unjust either. So issue is moot.

        Well, in any society like ours which claims that the military
        is subject to civilian authority, we could do better in
        practice.

        Bob

    Re: 281.24
    
    Check out 90.21 which was written by a Black woman.
    
    Richard

    Its enteresting to compare the ministry of Christ on earth with that of
    the militsry chaplain. Jesus didn't directly address issues like slavery,
    oppressive government, subjection of women etc. Yet His principles were
    in complete opposition to all of these.
    	Similarly, a military chaplain who speaks out directly about unjust
    war or military policy isn't following the example of Christ. 
    
    john

Note 281.28

>    Jesus didn't directly address issues like slavery,
>    oppressive government, subjection of women etc. Yet His principles were
>    in complete opposition to all of these.

Neither did Jesus count on military rank and commission to support his
ministry.  At the same time, Jesus did not exclude members of the military
from his ministry.

>    	Similarly, a military chaplain who speaks out directly about unjust
>    war or military policy isn't following the example of Christ. 

On one level I understand what you're saying.  At the same time, I can see
a parallel in Jesus clearing the Temple of its merchants and moneychangers
and the chaplain speaking out against the desecration of life through war.

Richard

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 890.77  The undisputed letters of Paul & miscellaneous ramblings   77 of 79
TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon"                      24 lines  13-APR-1994 22:35
                            -< Ah the liberals... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    It is a fact that in WWII in Europe, the Christian churches were only
    helping 'their own' in the particular area that the minister emeritus
    was serving in the military as chaplain at the time (believe it was
    France).  People who were in need of medical assistance were going 
    without, based on their nationality and religious affiliation or lack 
    thereof.
    
    He formed a group, and using surplus US medical supplies (I believe he
    was in charge of them in his particular area of military responsibility), 
    gave these to all people who were in the most need of them without regard 
    for their religion, nationality, race, etc.  
    
    At the time he was using the medical supplies in this way, his commanding 
    officer turned a blind eye toward it and said that either he was going to 
    get a court martial or be honored for it.  Fortunately it turned out to be
    the latter.
    
    Eventually he went on to help form the Unitarian Service committee (now 
    the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee which assists all of humanity 
    without regard for religion, race, gender, sexual preference and so on.)
    Proselytizing is not part of their service, either.
    
    Cindy 

	A Southern Baptist military chaplain who questioned the U.S. role
in the Persian Gulf War was forced to retire in December.  After Air Force
Lt. Col. Garland Robertson wrote a 1991 letter questioning U.S. use of
force against Iraq, his superiors began maneuvering to subdue him.  He
was suspended from pastoral duties and required to take three mental health
exams.  The third exam diagnosed a "personality disorder so severe as to
interfere with the normal and customary completion of his duties."

	Civilian employees testified that Robertson's superiors were
ordered to have him removed from his post.  "If we don't serve what the
institution feels are the best interests, there are subtle ways our
witness can be eliminated," Robertson said.

	This example serves to undergird my objection to a military-connected
chaplaincy.

Shalom,
Richard