[updated with Democratic comment] CAPITOL HILL: Lobbyists and journalists focus on the big numbers in the defense budget when they look at the annual National Defense Authorization Act. But in the political theater that is the House Armed Services Committee’s markup of the NDAA, sometimes it’s the small dramas that are most telling. So it was yesterday evening, when an amendment proposed by Louisiana Republican John Fleming put his fellow Republicans right between the Rock of Ages and a political hard place.

A bipartisan majority had already slapped down an amendment offered by New Jersey Democrat Rob Andrews that would allow the appointment of atheists as chaplains. (It’s not quite such an oxymoron as it sounds: more on that below). But then Fleming, a Mississippi-born medical doctor elected to Congress in 2008, introduced his own amendment that threatened to undo a compromise worked out by GOP leaders last year in the fiscal 2013 NDAA.

The law currently on the books (Public Law 112, Section 533) states that “the Armed Forces shall accommodate the beliefs” of servicemembers and not discriminate against them except for “actions and speech that threaten good order and discipline.” A major purpose of the law was to protect conservative and evangelical Christians, especially chaplains, from official retribution for statements that might offend other groups, such as denouncing homosexual marriage as contrary to the Bible, urging non-Christians to convert, or simply ending a public prayer with “in Jesus’s name, amen.”

But Fleming argue that protection still isn’t enough, that “accomodat[ing] beliefs” had been interpreted so broadly by some commanders that they had punished conservative Christian servicemembers for statements potentially offensive to secularists and gays. He wanted to amend Section 533 to “the Armed Forces shall accommodate the beliefs, actions, and speech” of servicemembers except for “actions and speech that actually harm good order and discipline.”

HASC’s top Democrat, Washington State’s Adam Smith, immediately spoke up in opposition: The law must protect both the right to express one’s views and the right not to be forced to listen to others’ expressions, he said, and last year’s compromise should not be undone.

But then HASC chairman Buck McKeon added a note of caution: He, too, was worried the amendment as written would undo the protections put into law last year in ways that would have unintended consequences. Wouldn’t Rep. Fleming like to work on refining the legislative language?

It’s really fine the way it is, Fleming replied.

Another Republican leader, Seapower chairman Randy Forbes, stepped in: “I think the way this is worded is problematic,” he said.

Would you agree to pull the amendment so we can refine it? McKeon asked Fleming.

No, the Louisiana Congressman replied, like a very polite Martin Luther. “I want to move forward.”

What followed was a fascinating reversal of the usual roles. McKeon called for a voice vote and, when the “ayes” and “no’s” seemed roughly equal in volume, he invoked his privilege as chairman to rule by ear. Normally McKeon calls such votes for the conservative position, but this time, he said, “in the opinion of the chair, the no’s have it.”

Fleming promptly invoked his right to request a formal vote. When it came, a few minutes later, McKeon himself voted for Fleming’s amendment. Three other top Republicans, however, voted “present,” effectively abstaining: Forbes, the seapower chairman; Robert Wittman, chairman of the readiness subcommittee; and Mac Thornberry, chairman of emerging threats and vice-chairman of the entire committee. The final tally? Three “present,” 26 opposed, and 33 in favor.

“The amendment passes,” McKeon said. Notably lacking was the usual note of satisfaction in the chairman’s voice when Republicans prevail.

Fleming’s amendment is unlikely to make it through conference with the Democratic-controlled Senate. [UPDATED: Indeed, after this story first went online, one Democratic staffer told us bluntly, “I can’t imagine that something as offensive as this would survive conference.”] Interestingly, the official summary of the amended NDAA released by McKeon’s staff does not mention the provision. But some strengthening of Section 533 may well occur.

By contrast, Rep. Andrews’s attempt to authorize atheist chaplains was, to quote the Wizard of Oz, “really most sincerely dead.”

“I don’t offer this to be provocative,” Andrews insisted, but what if a servicemember who does not believe in God seeks spiritual counseling, rather than the services of a psychologist or social worker?

Andrews was working with the Secular Coalition for America, part of an international movement whose leaders include controversial scientist Richard Dawkins. “20% of the country…are nontheistic or religiously unaffiliated,” wrote the coalition’s federal affairs director, Kelly Damerow, in a letter to legislators shortly before the markup. “Nearly 25% of those in the US military service are non-believers or do not affiliate with any specific religion. This outnumbers Hindu, Buddhists, Muslims and Jewish service members combined…by 17 times!”

Note that “not affiliat[ing] with a specific religion” is very different from identifying oneself as a “non-believer.” Nevertheless, even using the stricter criteria, different activist group that also backed the amendment, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), calculates that  self-declared “atheists” outnumber any non-Christian denomination, such as Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews.

Unsurprisingly, the whole idea did not go over well on the other side of the chamber. “You can’t use the word ‘chaplain’ with atheists,” boggled Texas Republican Mike Conaway. Chaplains believe in God by definition, he argued.

Secular humanist groups, naturally, disagree, and in fact the armed forces of ultra-liberal Holland do include dozens of “humanist” chaplains. In the US military, a chaplain must be certified and sponsored by some established congregation, and under Rep. Andrews’s amendment, “humanist, ethical culturalist, or atheist” organizations would qualify.

Conservatives, naturally, reacted with visceral dismay. “I can’t imagine an atheist accompanying a casualty notification team,” Conaway said, and telling the weeping parents that “your son’s just worm food.” Atheists, he said, “don’t believe in anything.”

“To say an atheist or humanist doesn’t believe anything is just ignorant,” countered Rep. Smith. “I’m Episcopalian,” he said, “[but] they believe in a system of values and their system of values means just as much to them as our Christianity means to us.” (That said, there’s no millennia-long tradition of secular humanism comparable to Islam or Christianity, let along Judaism, although some forms of Buddhism are arguably atheistic. And then you get to Jains and other long-established belief systems such as Taoism).

Forbes, once again, tried to find a compromise, or at least a way to get the ball out of HASC’s court. “You have to have an endorsing agent to get a chaplain,” he noted, and those groups must be qualified by the Internal Revenue Service as tax-exempt religious organizations: If an atheist group wants to nominate chaplains, he argued, they first should go to the IRS.

In the voice vote, a loud chorus of “no” drowned out any “yes.” When Andrews requested a roll call, the finally tally was 18 to 43 against.

Edited 2:20 pm. Updated June 7 at 11:20 am.