|
The answer has to be that the government can fire chaplains who suggest that. It is not good for morale. Given the basis or justification for having chaplains in the first place cuts against any broad and sweeping first amendment free speech claim on the part of the chaplains.
-----Original Message-----
There is a fascinating article in today's NYTimes on the increasing number of Evangelical chaplains in the armed services. Consider oe James Klingenschmitt, of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, whose retention was recommended against by his commanding officer following, among other things, his preaching at a memorial service at sea for a Catholic sailor that "emphasized that for those who did not accept Jesus, 'God's wrath remains upon him.'" I presume that the this was not meant to apply to the Catholic seaman, but it obviously suggested to any Jewish or Muslim (or atheist or Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.) that they were condemned to God's wrath. In any event, is there a serious argument that it is improper to take such speech into account in deciding whether to recommend that the contract be renewed. I presume, incidentally, that the armed forces would not renew the contract of a chaplain who sugested that a given war was in fact "unjust," If the armed services can constittionally do that (presumably on grounds that it is not good for the morale of those in the armed services), then why can't it fire chaplains who suggest that many members of the armed services are damned to eternal perdition?
sandy |
_______________________________________________ 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.
