|
I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of
argument -- that the only point of concern is to "protect the chaplain" --
as opposed to serve the religious needs and interest of our armed
forces.
Not only are these interpretations of history and
law enormously biased and inaccurate, they are offensive. If the
chaplaincy's purpose is solely to promote Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sectarian
faith than perhaps Madison was correct in arguing that Congress' decision to
hire chaplains was wrong and should now be recended.
David
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 8:16
PM
Subject: RE: Victory for Military
Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"
Excellent comment Professor Scarberry,
But now that the policy is rescinded, so is any distinction between
"public worship at divine services" and "public worship at command ceremonies"
and so the law (once again) protects the chaplain at all events whenever he
prays...prayer itself is restored as an act of "public worship" the same way
it always had been since 1860.
The origins of the 1860 law were described recently by our new
friend CDR Wildhack, who wrote in the Naval Law Review Vol 51 (2003):
"As in our day, questions about the manner and forms of
worship have also long been a part of the history of the Chaplain Corps. Early
regulations specified that the duties of chaplains included having to 'read'
prayers (53). In 1859, the Speaker of the House of Representatives asked the
Secretary of the Navy whether chaplains were required to 'read' prayers or
follow any particular forms or ceremony in leading worship, and if the Navy
had any evidence of a requirement that non-Episcopal chaplains had to follow
the Episcopal liturgy (54). In replying, the Secretary explained that he
was not aware that the instruction to 'read' had ever been construed to
require a literal reading from a particular prayer book, but rather as a
requirement that prayers be offered aloud without specifying they be read from
a book, written down by the chaplain beforehand to be read later, or offered
extemporaneously (55). To further reassure the Speaker and his colleagues in
Congress, the Secretary announced a new order officially interpreting the
requirement that prayers be 'read' to mean that prayers be 'offered,' thus
leaving the chaplain free to follow the dictates of his own religious
tradition.(56) Perhaps in response to such communication with Congress, new
Navy Regulations adopted in 1860 included this addition: "Every chaplain shall
be permitted to conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of
the church of which he may be a member."(57) No longer merely a regulation,
that language is now in force as part of the United States Code.(58)"
Thanks to CDR Wildhack for this insight....But it reveals
today's tragic irony....the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer was once seen
as 'mandatory' for all chaplains...but Congress (wisely) overcame that, to
allow non-Christian chaplains (i.e. first 3 Jewish chaplains appointed by Abe
Lincoln in 1860) total freedom to NOT the use Christian prayer book...and now
in 2006, the policy actually PROHIBITED using the Christian prayer
book in public....the pendulum swung too far...so now Congress has
(wisely) righted itself, to restore religious diversity, allowing any
variety of prayers to be said, instead of punishing Christian prayers
while forcing Christian chaplains to pray Jewish prayers (i.e. theologically
sensitive prayers).
Chaplain Klingenschmitt
"Scarberry, Mark"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It
seems there is a distinction between "Divine/Religious Services" and other
"command functions." I don't suppose Marty is saying that a chaplain may not
pray in Jesus' name during Divine/Relgious Services. Paragraph 6(c) does not
require that Divine/Religious Services be non-sectarian but only that
religious elements in other command functions be non-sectarian. If
Divine/Religious Services were required to be nonsectarian then they
couldn't be divine services for the chaplain's particular faith; note that
the chaplains are required to "provide ministry to those of their own faith"
which rules out nonsectarian requirements for such ministry whether or not
that ministry occurs in a Divine/Religious Service. I suppose there could be
a serious question whether a particular memorial service for a deceased
sailor (the context, I believe of Chaplain Klingenschmitt's disagreement
with the Navy) is a Divine/Religious Service or instead a different kind of
remembrance of the sailor. Whether nonsectarian prayer would be required
might depend on how the event was classified, I think.
Mark
Scarberry
Pepperdine
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make
PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2ยข/min or less.
_______________________________________________
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.
