So the chaplaincy does appear to be an oddity under the Establishment Clause.
The reason that the chaplaincy is likely constitutional, despite the Establishment Clause restrictions you mentioned, has to do with the principle of religious accommodation.
As you might imagine, triple-talaq is considerably more popular with Muslim men than with Muslim women.The ordinary secular mode of divorce in India is, like any other Indian legal proceeding, rather more cumbrous.Where that line is drawn isn’t something that can be mathematically derived or empirically justified, and it moves from time to time. In India, they have taken an important step toward a more deeply shared culture: “On this, we will agree,” at least when it comes to the question of divorce.Mark Steyn, quoting Lord Moulton earlier this week, made reference to the “realm of manners,” that vast majority of human social life that exists between what is prohibited and what is mandatory, the “domain in which our actions are not determined by law but in which we are not free to behave in any way we choose.” He spoke in reference to the ongoing protest staged by Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players who, cheesed off by . In the United States, we are galloping as fast as we can in the opposite direction, suddenly (but it was not sudden) deciding that we must have riots over century-old statues of Civil War figures that the typical American high-school student could not tell you one thing about, including which side of the war they fought on. A little diversity — which means a little disagreement — is a good thing from time to time.The “triple talaq” method of divorce was just outlawed by the Indian supreme court after a challenge by a number of unhappy divorcees supported by, among others, the Indian Muslim Women’s Movement.
Triple-talaq divorce was, in theory, available to women, too, though a woman who initiated such a divorce would in effect have forfeited any economic claims related to the marriage and probably have lost custody of her children.In the past, this might not have caused a dispute, but now there are serious controversies over this issue because people are much more willing to object to the pressure.The military chaplaincy seems to present a constitutional paradox in that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause restricts the government’s authority to fund and endorse religion, but the military funds chaplains who promote religious messages.How deeply the ethic of India — a secular republic that is home to many different religious traditions — ought to be identical with Hinduism — the faith and cultural tradition of the overwhelming majority of the people of that secular republic — is a matter of endless dispute.A Hindu-nationalist politician who insisted that India is Hindu was chastised by a liberal: “No,” the critic said, “India is secular. And that is because India is 80 percent Hindu, not 80 percent Muslim.” The example of Pakistan, part of India until independence and partition, must be sobering.Correcting those wrongs is what progressives understand their mission in public life to be. A shared culture and basic material prosperity paper over a great many differences.