Saint Martin's Cloak

The Interview Army Command Policy (AR 600-20) reserves approval of some religious accommodations to offices in the Pentagon, others to the first general officer in the chain of command, and the remainder to commanders at any level.  In some cases, a chaplain must be assigned to interview the requestor. After the interview, the chaplain prepares a memorandum summarizing the interview. The memorandum must address the religious nature of the request and the requestor’s sincerity. The chaplain is not required to recommend approval or disapproval, but may do so. The requestor can also provide letters from other chaplains or religious leaders, but those letters do not meet the requirement for the interview. (AR 600-20, Appendix P-3.b.(3)) Adapting the Chaplain's Role in Conscientious Objection This chaplain requirement is similar to the one for conscientious objector applicants in paragraph 2-4 of DA Pam 600-46 (Processing Applicants for Conscientious Objection). There, a cha...

God Told Me Last January, I listened to a presentation by a lawyer representing Navy SEALs seeking religious exemption from the COVID vaccine requirement. I asked him to speak about the reasons people gave for seeking the accommodation. If I heard him correctly, one of the reasons that individuals gave for seeking the exemption was “God told me to.”  I don’t see how you could possibly build a workable system of religious accommodation on such a foundation. <!-- wp:more --> <!--more--> <!-- /wp:more --> In October (10/17/23), a federal court in Maryland issued a ruling that I think agrees with me.  In  Foshee vs. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP , the court dismissed a claim by individuals seeking religious exemption from the vaccine requirement.  In dismissing the case, the court wrote: Foshee’s position, that God gave him a conscience that tells him what to do, similarly amounts to a “blanket privilege. The same conscience-based ...

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act established three tests for religious accommodation. Is the government imposing a Substantial Burden on the exercise of religion? Is it doing so to achieve a Compelling Government Interest ? Is is using the Least Restrictive Means of furthering the Compelling Government Interest? If the answer to #1 is yes but the answer to #2 or #3 is no, the government is wrong to deny requests for religious accommodation. In 2020, Department of Defense Instruction 1300.17 applied these standards to religious accommodation in the armed forces. The exact definition of “substantial burden" is still being litigated. Among the factors that courts have said could create a substantial burden are: Religious Importance . How important is the religious principle or practice to the individual?  Penalty . How big is the penalty for violating government policy?  Pressure . How much pressure is the government on an individual to viola...

The Army policy on religious accommodation is founded on Depart of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.17. Throughout my career, the DODI was called  Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services.  In 2020, the name changed to  Religious Liberty in the Military Services .   The change hints at the substantive changes it entailed.  Since my background is with the Army, I will describe how Army policy evolved. When I entered active duty in 1991, here is how the regulations described the Army’s religious accommodation policy.  The Army places a high value on the rights of its soldiers to observe tenets of their respective religions. It is the Army's policy to approve requests for accommodation of religious practices when they will not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, standards, health, safety, or discipline, or otherwise interfere with the performance of the soldier's military duties. However, accomm...