For the reasons given in prior postings about the difficulty of drawing constitutional lines without prohibiting certain theological viewpoints held by perhaps a majority of military personnel, and about the legitimate authority that military superiors would have to relieve a chaplain who was undermining military morale from his/her duties, as reluctant as I am to appeal to a precedent that I think was wrongly decided I think that Goldman v. Weinberger should control the inquiry here: the courts should defer to the judgment of military leadership in deciding how best to meet the spiritual needs of its troops in a way that will best enhance military morale and readiness. I haven't read the 2nd Circuit case that Chip pointed us to, but it seems to me that the only quasi-constitutional rationale for the legitimacy of military chaplains is that it would be unduly harsh to deprive the troops of spiritual resources in times of battle etc., so that the EC problems being discussed must be tolerated because there is no other way to meet the troops' spiritual needs. Any thoughts? Dave Ball
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:42 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Chaplains and public funds I don't think this is just a question of chaplains using public funds. Even if all chaplains were funded by private entities, the military would still have to play an important role in selecting which ones may accompany the troops, providing them with housing and protection, and so on. (The matter may be less complex when soldiers are on base and can easily go off it to go to church, but that of course won't always be the case.) So some degree of entanglement of a sort that would normally violate the Establishment Clause would be present even if no government salaries were involved. Conversely, even if the chaplains weren't soldiers, the military would have ample reason to limit chaplains' speech on military property to soldiers, in order to maintain morale and military effectiveness, just as it has ample reason to limit its soldiers' and officers' speech. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Sanders > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:33 AM > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Subject: RE: Free speech for chaplains > > > A larger problem is that while people like us fret about the > chaplains' free-speech rights, at least some evangelical chaplains > care little about the letter or spirit of the rules within which their > position is intended to operate. Some, it is becoming clear, have > their own agenda, and, when confronted with concerns, respond > indignantly that they answer to a higher authority. The same chaplain > who made the offensive comments at the Catholic sailor's funeral went > on the tell the Times: "The Navy wants to impose its religion on me. > Religious pluralism is a religion. It's a theology all by itself." > > The reality is that many in this debate will play dishonest semantic > games -- twisting the issues, claiming victim status, and propounding > non-sequitors that will be loudly repeated from pulpits, on cable > shoutfests, and no doubt sooner or later from the floor of Congress. > So, setting aside my conviction that this sort of thing is exactly why > it's ill-advised to fund religious ministry with public funds, I would > add to the agenda for discussion: how do we talk to the public and > relevant decisionmakers about the delicate balances that are necessary > if a program like this is to have constitutional integrity? > _________________________________ > > Steve Sanders > University of Michigan Law School > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Wed: http://www.stevesanders.net > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
