That’s why I never tried to become one.

You stole my answer!

This is the military... Everyone in the military is willing to risk their lives for a principle.

@JustAskMe That poses an interesting question. How many would be willing to risk their lives for a bad war (Viet Nam or invading Iraq)? I guess under the draft this might be the case but when it becomes a career move fewer are willing to question what they are serving for (money and security becomes paramount).
I served in the military and would not go to Viet Nam. Luckily I found a way to reduce those chances and succeeded.

[study.com]

@Gatovicolo this from the link you sent me: Individuals interested in becoming Navy chaplains must qualify as a graduate theology students and then complete Navy officer and chaplain training programs. They must be tolerant of diverse religious traditions and be willing to minister respectfully to all. He was none of that.

@Mofo1953 ok. And?

@Gatovicolo I ask the same to you.

@Mofo1953
Just because the qualifications for becoming a chaplain In the USN require a graduate degree in divinity or theology, doesn’t mean that the qualifications are fair. As I pointed out earlier, Chaplains do more than merely provide religious services. An atheistic chaplain could do that. That makes this religious discrimination.

@Mofo1953, @motrubl4u
Just because the qualifications for becoming a chaplain In the USN require a graduate degree in divinity or theology, doesn’t mean that the qualifications are fair. As I pointed out earlier, Chaplains do more than merely provide religious services. An atheistic chaplain could do that. That makes this religious discrimination.

@Gatovicolo you were wrong, just admit it and save a modicum of face. You're defending the indefensible. Life ain't fair dude. He didn't qualify, he wasn't accepted; end of story. Ooooh, but it wasn't fair. Boo hoo! I'll play the violin while you eat crow.

@Mofo1953 What’s wrong with you? Are you just imperceptive or overly argumentative?

@Gatovicolo I ask you exactly the same question.

From the article: "Heap holds a master’s degree in divinity from Texas Christian University as well as a theological history degree from Oxford."
"Heap’s application had cleared the first hurdle in the selection process, meaning a Navy board had determined he was qualified to take on the role."

The letter sent by congressmen says: "“We are concerned that the Navy is taking steps to expand the chaplain corps beyond its focused purpose...the chaplaincy was designed to facilitate the exercise of religious belief, not philosophical belief — this is the bright line that the Department of Defense must use in defining the boundaries of the chaplain corps.”"

The atheist applying for a position within the Navy's chaplain corps was determined to be qualified to hold the position and the objection stated in the letter from congressmen is based solely on his lack of religious belief.

@RussRAB You are correct, I as an atheist and ordaned minister have been following the story. It was Congress that stepped in and disallowed him. Not the Navy. He is qualified by the Navys definition. I was also a U.S. Navy Sailor.

@RussRAB there is a requirement that he could not do being an atheist "be willing to minister respectfully to all (religions)" if he's an atheist he could not give communion to catholics, or perform last rites to other abrahamic religions.

@DavidLaDeau - Later in life, my parents joined a Unitarian church that was extremely liberal (which was very odd since my father was terribly conservative in many ways). This congregation hired a minister who identified as a nonbeliever. His role as minister was the same as any other fulfilling the role.

@Mofo1953 - Would a Muslim also be disqualified as a Navy chaplain? I don't imagine they could administer the rituals you mention. I don't know, but I wonder if a devout Catholic could accept a Protestant evangelical administering the rituals you mention. I know Mormons couldn't. They would only accept it from one of their own. Knowing the expectation of the job, I seriously doubt if Mr. Heap isn't prepared to fulfill his role as a chaplain. From the article: "others view military chaplains as an entity that serves critical roles far beyond religion, such as counseling and providing mental health services to those in need. In performing those duties, chaplains take on a role of accommodating the spiritual needs of other service members, instead of espousing their own beliefs." We should also note that "the number of non-believers in the ranks is growing, according to the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers". Why is it that we should should accept ""... that nontheist service members, wearing the uniform of the United States Navy, are denied access to a humanist chaplain.""?

@RussRAB Actually I am an ordainded minister and am considering becoming a chaplain for myy Local Marine Corps League chapter. The reason fornthis is I am more familiar with religions than most people. In this context it would be for people. There are frequently Veterens thst pass etc. And it is important to care for the families and honor our vets. It is about taking care of the needs of humans that is all. My beliefs are of no concern in this context.

@DavidLaDeau - That makes complete sense to me. Compassion and understanding for our fellow human beings transcends differences in belief - or at least it should.

@RussRAB look, I an a nonbeliever and not happy with what this guy experienced. That said, my comments are based on facing reality. The Navy has rules and like it or not, and until they change the rules, the denial was done according to the rules. An atheist would not be able to comply but all other Abrahamic religions qualify. Islam is Abrahamic so there's your answer to your opening question. Asian religions like Buddhist or Thaoist or Hindu also qualify because these are respectful of other religions. Atheist, by definition, aren't, because atheists do not believe in any gods. Remember, what does the first commandment of catholics and christians and jews and also respected by islam says? That is all I will say because this is getting out of hand.

@Mofo1953 - I hear what you are saying. I don't want this to get out of hand either. I have enjoyed your comments and generally find agreement with you. The supreme rule of the US is the Constitution. All other rules are supposed to (with a wink and a nod on "supposed to" ) conform to that document. I say this knowing that when it was instituted, the men who wrote it and advocated for its adoption violated it in some very serious and severe ways. Over time, these flawed traditions were challenged and chznge and a new standard was set. If someone isn't willing to challenge established traditions which don't conform to our supreme law of the land, then faulty rules will remain in place and discrimination will continue. For my final comment, there is a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that I really like. The story is that he said this at the close of the Constitutional Convention.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many  instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise."

Having disagreed on this subject, I would offer you a friendly cyber handshake. May we end on good terms for future interactions.

@Gatovicolo Ohferpetesake, now you're just being difficult. ... You didn't read what you posted and you're mucking up the water, now.

Often in the military you need counseling. Typical deployed units don’t have that except for the chaplain. Their function isn’t purely religious. Yes they run religious services for those who want them, but they help with the typical emotionally charged issues everyone faces. You have the option of going out and talking to someone in the community, the average sailor doesn’t. You don’t see psychologists in front line units.

True, having 'been there, amd domne that' I would agree. I would also say that it's actually your team mates that help with the bulk of the counselling. The stuff that you have to try to deal with is with your partner, family and friends when you return. Neither sid seems willing to accept that all have changed.

@Gatovicolo It makes no sense to me that an atheist would want to be a chaplin since part of the duties are to perform religious services.

One thing many who try to figure out what the old dead men thought seem to forget is that those men knew they'd be dead someday, and set up a system which expected us to figure things out for ourselves within certain basic parameters (much the way they tried to in their times). They didn't expect us to be so weak and cowardly as to second guess ourselves on every little thing, ignore all of history and new knowledge gained since they lived, and view our laws as if it is perpetually 1788. And if we DO fall for this trick from others who live today, that's our fault. We're alive. Deferring to dead people because a few live people say we should is not any better than deferring to some people's gods because they say we should. It may be worthwhile to know clearly what many founders were thinking and why, but to divorce that understanding from new knowledge in a modern society, to my mind, is not even what the founders expected us to do.

@greyeyed123 - And whatever they expected is kinda not the point. Who cares what they wanted or expected. ... We need to move on.

@JustAskMe Much of what they set up was and is extraordinary, and understanding it for what it is is necessary to understand how and why it works better than anything that came before. The reason human progress continues is by standing on the shoulders of giants. To toss out the thinking of the founders is to toss out the establishment clause, separation of powers, checks and balances, etc. The point I was making is not to disregard what they meant or thought, but to consider it in a more nuanced light--namely, that the system they set up REQUIRES us to figure things out on our own within the constitutional structure (that is very short and simple on purpose).

@greyeyed123 "To toss out the thinking of the founders is to toss out the establishment clause, separation of powers, checks and balances, etc."

I disagree. That seems to be analogous to having to toss out the concept of the wheel because we don't know what the first person who created it had in mind for it. It is perfectly reasonable for new generations to take and use what old ideas are still useful based on their current standards than to have to consider if it fits within the parameters of the thinking of those who originated the idea. I don't see how real progress can be made without tossing out thought processes that couldn't take into consideration the changes that time brings about.

Their "thinking" is totally irrelevant. Their "ideas" may or may not still have merit regardless of what they thought about them

@redbai I think we agree. What you describe is what I was trying to say.

I was in the Navy for twenty years and there were no compulsory religious events.
I thought of becoming a secular chaplain, if that even makes sense, but decided against it because I couldn’t see myself providing religious services with a straight face. Still, grief counseling, and counseling in general, could be provided by a secular chaplain. You don’t have to be religious to provide all chaplain services.

@Gatovicolo Exactly! I served in the Air Force, and know for certain that there is a need for humanist chaplains who, as you note, do so much more than prayer could possibly answer. As more men and women in uniform choose to have "agnostic" or "atheist" stamped onto their dog tags, there will come a time when sheer numbers demand secular chaplains.