Let's get this straight:  The Federal Government dusts off a 57-year old regulation that potentially endangers the healthcare of a population that it is pledged to serve.  No one has asked that the regulation it seeks to implement be enforced. This is Government "anticipating" a "problem" that may or may not exist but in any event can be remedied in a more effective, win-win fashion by thoughtful leadership that is clearly lacking.

I am writing about returning the Bible and cross to the chapel at the VA's Fayetteville Medical Center.  This issue is much bigger than what meets the eye.  This matter is really about government, who it serves, and how it can work to meet the needs of a population that we have largely forgotten.

It is no wonder that people are losing confidence in those who govern.  The VA acts like a rudderless ship.  While Church-State issues are central in the threatened lawsuit against the Veterans Administration, there are healthcare and expression concerns that underlie this potential litigation.  In seeking to impose its draconian policy, the VA is risking damage to the healthcare of veterans while trampling on the rights of those veterans who have different ideas.  Bruce Triplett of the VA has written me two emails suppressing my freedom to express myself as well as to worship with other veterans at the hospital. 

If the VA were truly dedicated to serving the health needs of its largely indigent population, it would follow a different path. As recent studies from Duke Medical School show, patients with a spiritual connection have consistently better health outcomes than those without a spiritual foundation.  The Government would better serve its citizens by expanding opportunities for religious express, giving hope where there is despair.  This does not mean just returning the Bible and the cross to the chapel, but opening vistas and opportunities for spiritual growth and influence by a range of religions.  Instead of moving in this direction, they have demanded that volunteer chaplains refuse to utter the name "Jesus" while meeting with the ill.

Anyone who scrutinizes the VA's chapel "neutralization" policy implementation will be stunned.  The protestant cross and Bible have been removed but the Catholic crucifix, kneeler, and Bible (four more books that the Protestant Bible) remain.  Why the difference? Appointments of VA (and military) priests come through a Bishop in Washington who has informed the VA that its sacramental elements must not be removed. Hence, the chapel must be "neutralized" of Protestant elements, not Catholic.  How can this be explained?

The VA has not been asked by veterans or anyone to remove the Bible and cross.  This is government by "anticipation."  Fearing that someone, somewhere, and somehow might protest, they make changes that will meet future needs—real or imagined.  It is too bad that the VA doesn't do better "anticipating" the multitudes of head injury and PTSD cases they are now getting from Iraq.  Even if the logic were the same, the neutralization policy is deficient.  As we have said from the beginning, the preparation of a second "inter-faith" room is the way to go.  Of course the VA is nervous about devoting resources for a room that may not be used.

Currently, the Bible and cross is available when and if the chapel is staffed.  I have been at the chapel in the middle of a business day on several occasions no one could be found.  I would estimate that the Bible and cross are readily available about 25 hours per week.  What about the desperately ill veteran who wants to pray at midnight?  Can we really expect that chronically ill patients will make complex arrangements to have the chapel suitably prepared?

The sad reality is that the VA does not want to consider options.  On two occasions VA Director Triplett has threatened me by demanding that certain expressions were not "authorized" by him.  These demands are not figments of my imagination but written communications.  Specifically, I am not "authorized" to talk about the chapel "neutralization" policy while I am on hospital grounds.  Recently, I met Triplett to collect a copy of the elusive neutralization policy.  He refused to shake my hand.   Mr. Triplett doesn't appreciate that people I don't know, including VA employees, ask me about the neutralization policy and what should be done.  What harm is there through such discussions? 

Someone recently phoned my residence and asked if I was a religious fanatic.  What does that mean?  Does one have to be a zealot to demand a right to pray and read the Bible? Is one a fanatic when he insists on the best healthcare for our veterans including, if requested, spiritual guidance?  Did anyone bother to ask me if I was a fanatic when I joined the Marine Corps to fight for this country?  Maybe I do care.  Maybe I have a vision that we can create win-win solutions for the challenge of religious accommodation without trampling on individual liberty or asserting a plantation mentality.  Our lawyers have given the VA until December 12 to address our demands. I feel confident that a suitable outcome will be obtained, and that the veterans others and I care so deeply about will have their interest served.