Sandy,

First, I would need to interpret it to include things other than churches -- so rabbis, imams, and others can conduct services according to their own religious traditions for the most part.

I don't think it extends to content like an imam saying "all good muslims will oppose the war in Iraq and refuse to go" or a Quaker or Buddhist advocating consciencious objection as the weekly diet of preaching or a Rabbi exhorting support for Israel and against the creation of a Palestinian state.

All of these things happen in some mosques, synagogues, and meeting houses and could be claimed to be part of the "manner and form" of the religious tradition.  But this highlights the distinction between "manner and form" on the one hand and substance and content on the other.  So I could read the provision to be a formal one (singing, prayer, silence, whatever are allowed), but one where the government can censor what is said.  That would be a permissible (though ill-advised, and I hope wrong) reading of the statute (leaving aside constitutional issues for a moment).

Chaplains do not get carte blanche and this statute doesn't give it to them.

As a matter of policy, and I would argue, constitutional protection of free exercise, I think chaplains have much broader latitude than the narrowest reading of the statute would permit, but I don't think this statute necessarily means as much as it might seem to.

I have not researched the statute and am not an expert at all in military law or religion in the military, and so these comments are relatively off-the-cuff.

Steve

On Oct 11, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Sanford Levinson wrote:

 
But the content of the worship must be free from regulation, as Title 10 Section 6031 clearly allows:  "An officer in the chaplain corps may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member."  I've yet to hear Chip, Sandy, Alan, Steve, or Paul people acknowledge the legitimacy of this law.  Were you a judge, would you uphold this law as written?  I'm asking. 
 
I do think such a law is legitimate on its face.  I suppose the one question is what happens if a particular service is thought to present a "threat" to the military along the lines we've been discussing.  But this would clearly be case-by-case, fact-intensive, as opposed to challenging the law above on its face.
 
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.

-- 

Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                     vox:  202-806-8017

Howard University School of Law                           fax:  202-806-8428

2900 Van Ness Street NW                            mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Washington, DC  20008           http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar


"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him."


Martin Luther King, Jr.



_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to