Wiccan Chaplain

[David E. Guinn]

There are levels to this problem.

First, the complaint about the process of selecting a chaplain - or the idea of selecting a chaplain, seems to me to be displaced.  Along the same lines of argument as relates to the appointment of military chaplains, insofar as the State removes a person from their community, then the state assumes a responsibility to meeting their fundamental needs - including their religious needs.  (I omit the Marsh argument on history.)

Second,  I'm not sure why an atheist should have a complaint.  As a prisoner (consumer) they have an option to solicit or not solicit the chaplain's help.  Since counseling (by both secular and religious standards) is one of a chaplain's skills, the atheist has access to "secular" counseling if desired.  In terms of becoming a chaplain - if they are aggressively atheistic I'm not sure I understand why they would want to - and in any event, I'm not sure that they would be professionally qualified.  Admittedly, this is a professional qualification based on religion - but it still is a measurable performance standard.  Chaplains do obtain certification in Clinical Pastoral Care.  And we don't think it is discriminatory to refuse to hire a social worker who does believe in social worker or has no degree.

I will agree that the position of chaplain potentially discriminates against certain people of faith who cannot function outside their specific religious belief.  I do, however, reject the idea of labeling them "orthodox" - since chaplains are drawn from virtually every faith tradition present in this country and they are able to function well within the parameters of their job.  Here again, these individuals are incapable of fulfilling the requirements of the job and, therefore, are professionally unqualified.  And, again, I am not sure why they would want to take a position to render spiritual care that would violate their belief.  Moreover, the presence of a chaplain does not preclude access to a pastor of the prisoner's own faith tradition - if the tradition will provide one.

Having seen the benefits of a well functioning chaplaincy program, I do not understand how religious freedom can be advanced by eliminating a public program that meets the needs of a widely diverse majority based upon the theoretical objections of a small minority.  It cannot be simply the EC objection against the use of public monies (a point rejected by Rosenberger and Marsh.)  The current system serves the needs of prisoner (better or worse depending on the program), it does not coerce prisoners to adopt any particular religion, and it publicly acknowledges that religion is an important social value (rather then something that is to be hidden in the closet - like one's sexual orientation if it doesn't conform to social norms.)

David


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael D. Dean 
  To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu 
  Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:26 PM
  Subject: Re: Wiccan Chaplain


  I hope Steve's post that I was "distorting" Wicca and his Ghandi quote weren't a personal shot at me. I guess I read the articles the way I think David did - that the Wiccan chaplain was describing only what SHE would do, not Wiccan beliefs generally.

  David's "job description" explanation isn't helpful to me. If Wiccan beliefs generally or this Wiccan's beliefs in particular are "non-exclusive" so that she can lend spiritual guidance without evangelizing or proselytizing, what about other chaplains ("orthodox" priests, rabbis, ministers, imams, whatever) whose "exclusive" beliefs / doctrines require that they provide spiritual guidance only in accordance with what they believe is the one "true way"? Can the state impose a "job description" requiring chaplains to be "non-exclusive" in their counseling? If so, doesn't that require both "orthodox" chaplains to endorse a "non-exclusive" viewpoint with which they disagree?

  I understood David to suggest that "non-religious" spiritual counseling used in health care fields would satisfy Wisconsin's job description and the constitution. I don't know what non-religious spirituality is, but if that's the job requirement, doesn't it still discriminate against the orthodox chaplains who believe non-religious spiritual guidance is simply wrong, as well as atheists and agnostics who don't believe in any kind of spirituality at all?

  I thought the Wisconsin ACLU comments were insightful - sooner or later someone will probably challenge the selection system. Like many religion issues, I'm not sure there is a completely coherent answer.

  Mike Dean

  ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: David E. Guinn 
    To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu 
    Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 8:13 AM
    Subject: Re: State of Wisconsin Hiring Wiccan Witch Prison Chaplain


    I am not sure of the function of a chaplin in the prison system, however, a chaplin in the healthcare setting IS expected to be able to provide spiritual assistance for anyone in need - not only their co-religionists.  (In practice, many seriously ill patients find more spiritual comfort in talking with their physician avoiding the language of religion, than they do in talking with their clergy.)  Moreover, evangelism (absent a specific request by the patient at the patient's initiative) is considered a breach of ethics as as well as a violation of the job.  At the same time, the chaplin often serves primarily as an administrator - handling paper work and facilitating the work of other clergy members.

    It sounds to me like the Wiccan Witch is reciting the job discription and her willingness to abide by it rather then simply discribing Wicca.

    David
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Steve Jamar 
      To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu 
      Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 7:16 PM
      Subject: Re: State of Wisconsin Hiring Wiccan Witch Prison Chaplain


      Rather distorted presentation Wiccan beliefs.  It is not a system of everything goes. 
      "Michael D. Dean" wrote: 

        Following are several related stories from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel re the state's hiring a Wiccan witch as a chaplain in the state prison system. http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/dec01/3810.asphttp://www.jsonline.com/news/State/dec01/witch06120501a.asphttp://www.jsonline.com/news/State/dec01/3593.asp The story raises several interesting questions. Do fair employment laws prohibit the state from discriminating on the basis of religion in hiring a chaplain? Would an atheist or agnostic therapist have a claim if he were denied employment as a chaplain based on his irreligious beliefs? If not, doesn't that mean that the state can constitutionally impose a religious "base-line"? The Wiccan's belief in some kind of pantheistic "spirituality" is no less a religious base-line than other chaplains' mono- or poly-theistic beliefs in a personal God or gods. How can the Wiccan be "non-denominational" and "non-proselytizing" as she claims? Is that viewpoint a constitutional requirement for chaplains? In the broadest sense of "denomination," isn't the purpose of a chaplain to change or at least "develop" what an inmate thinks about spiritual issues? Isn't the Wiccan's "I'm OK you're OK" approach just as much a substantive viewpoint as a priest or rabbi's "my way or the highway" belief? That is, doesn't the "everybody's right, nobody's wrong" viewpoint send the message that the teachings and beliefs of exclusive truth religions and their adherents (including other chaplains) are erroneous? (Universalists and "exclusivists" have carried on some pretty vigorous debates.) What about the representative's idea of hiring chaplains so that the number of chaplains holding particular religious viewpoints corresponds to the relative percentages of inmates holding the same views? Assuming that a secular purpose of hiring chaplains is to rehabilitate and reduce recidivism (which itself assumes, rightly or wrongly, that religion is to some degree efficacious in achieving that objective), is "percentage of inmates" really the best basis on which to hire? Would it be rational or constitutional to use some kind of "success" criterion instead? For example, I don't know the actual statistics, but I've read that Nation of Islam and some evangelical Christian programs have had dramatic success in reducing recidivism. What about "voucherizing" the entire budget for spiritual or psychosocial services? There would be potential problems and abuses, but there would also be salutary trade-offs, not the least of which would be getting the state out of the business of determining "religious" qualifications of chaplains. On the other hand, the state would still have to develop criteria to qualify the service providers. Mike Dean
      -- 
      Prof. Steven D. Jamar, Director LRRW Program         vox:  202-806-8017 
      Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567 
      2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:sjamar at law.howard.edu 
      Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ 

      "The things that will destroy us are: 
       politics without principle; 
       pleasure without conscience; 
       wealth without work; 
       knowledge without character; 
       business without morality; 
       science without humanity, 
       and worship without sacrifice." 

                  Mahatma Gandhi 
        

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20020104/dc62e37e/attachment.htm