The following question was posed by the editors of the Newsweek/Washington Post blog, On Faith: The ACLU, joined by the ADL, has asked the U.S. Naval Academy to end prayers at mandatory meals, and yet all branches of the service employ chaplains. What is the proper role of religion in the military?
My response, excerpted below, drew the attention of someone claiming to be one of the nine midshipmen who requested help from the ACLU in ending the pre-meal prayers to which they objected. My initial response to the question is followed by both the comment of that midshipman and my response to him.
My initial comments:

This should not be about constitutional debate or political wrangling. Which is why the ACLU’s involvement, however well meaning, is not helpful. Nor is the involvement, soon to come I am sure, of any of the conservative advocacy groups with the word “freedom” in their name. This needs to be about meeting the spiritual needs of those sharing a meal, including those who have no felt spiritual needs at all.

So how about inviting all those who call the U.S. Naval Academy home, and who oppose such prayers, to articulate what they could live with in order to support those who want them, and inviting all those who want them figuring out how to pray in light of those requests. If neither side can participate in that conversation, then we will know that what they seek is not the accommodation of their needs, but the exclusion of someone else’s.
Perhaps a moment of silence to reflect on these questions is where to begin. Imagine no longer fighting about which side is right, but inviting all those affected to consider the needs of those around them before eating the meal they need to meet their own.

MIDN X:
I am one of the nine midshipmen that brought the noon meal prayer issue to the ACLU’s attention. We did so only after our numerous attempts to discuss the prayer issue with the Naval Academy administration failed. Our solution is simple: eliminate the large-scale, mandatory prayer and in its place allow those who would like to to pray to do so on their own or in small groups at their individual tables. We are not opposed to prayer; in fact, I encourage those who are religious to do so. We would simply like to be free from having the religious views of others imposed on us, much as you would like to be free from having my views imposed on you.
Midshipman X
July 26, 2008 4:52 PM
Posted on July 26, 2008 16:52
brad hirschfield:
Thanks to Midshipman X, both for his courage in bringing a genuine conern to his superiors (never easy in the military) and also for proving my point. The issue here, is not and never was, public prayer per se’. It was and remains the unresponsiveness of the Naval Academy adminsitration. Their failure to engage in precisely the kind of conversation which I suggested, has landed in court, which is never the best place to work out one’s differences.
I deeply appreciate the need for an environment free of religious coercion. Last time I checked, it is one of the values for which this nation stands and which these soon-to-be officers have pledged to defend.
We often miscontrue each others attempts to create settings that respect all people, either as being spiritually coercive or hostile to religion when that is not the intent of either side. My comments were directed at breaking that cycle and creating an environment in which better solutions could be found. Let’s hope that they will be.
July 26, 2008 9:53 PM

And although I did not raise it in that context, I am particularly disturbed that the Anti-Defamation League has joined the ACLU in this request. Why is it that this is even a “Jewish Issue”? Who has been defamed? Why do I get the feeling that once again we see a group that has only a hammer in their tool box, so they see every issue as a nail?
Wouldn’t a workable solution be preferable to another round, or 10, in federal court, in which arch secularists are pitted against triumphal religionists?