These comments about the chaplaincy, though, don’t have any direct legal effect because the , the 2nd Circuit upheld the U. Army’s chaplaincy on the ground that service members have a constitutional right under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to engage in religious worship, a right that the Army would unduly burden if it did not provide chaplains.
Nor should moving an examination or providing a makeup.
When thinking about these controversies, it’s important to distinguish between mandatory and voluntary religious activities. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found this requirement unconstitutional in (2003).
All service academies used to require everyone to attend religious services. Most of the recent controversies over this issue, however, have involved social pressure rather than official requirements.
Because military duties might take service members into isolated and hostile environments, service members might not be able to participate in civilian worship communities or receive spiritual counsel from civilian clergy.
Given this inability of service members to worship outside the military base, some of the justices concluded that the military may provide chaplains to accommodate the religious needs of service members.
Have courts upheld the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy on the basis of this accommodation principle? But in (1963), a landmark decision that prohibited public schools from leading Bible reading, several justices argued that the military chaplaincy is a valid accommodation of religion under the Establishment Clause.