Can military chaplains pray publicly in Jesus name?
nationwide priest shortage. Of the approximately 1.4 million people on active duty in the military, 21.5 percent list their religion as Roman Catholic. But of the 2,860 active-duty chaplains, 355 -- or 12.4 percent -- are Catholic priests. By far the largest single provider of chaplains to the military is now the Southern Baptist Convention, with 451 chap! lains, one for every 40 service members who list their denomination as Southern Baptist. Although the military has had growing difficulty recruiting ministers from mainline Protestant seminaries, many evangelical denominations place a high priority on supplying chaplains to the military. The Church of God in Christ, for example, has 109 active-duty chaplains. The Full Gospel churches have 61, the Church of the Nazarene has 68, and the Cleveland, Tenn.-based Churches of God have 58. The chief endorser of chaplains for the National Association of Evangelicals said he believes that the bias against evangelicals, though once real, is gone. "When you look at the Navy today, you see evangelicals at the top of the hierarchy," said retired Col. Stephen W. Leonard, a former Army chaplain. He points to the deputy chief of Navy chaplains, Rear Adm. Robert F. Burt, who belongs to the Open Bible Standard Church, and to the previous chief of Navy chaplains, the Rev. Barry C. Black, a Seventh-day Adventist who became chaplain of the Senate after retiring from the Navy. "There probably were chaplains that didn't get selected [for promotion] that probably should have been selected. But we're past that now. Let bygones be bygones," Leonard said. With the growth in evangelicals, heated disputes are occurring over public prayers. Iasiello said chaplains are free to preach however they wish in their base chapels or at sectarian worship services. But when they have a multi-faith audience at staff meetings, change-of-command ceremonies, ship commissionings and other public events, they are encouraged to offer more generic, inclusive prayers, he said. "We train our people to be sensitive to the needs of all of God's people. We don't direct how a person's going to pray. Because everyone's own denomination or faith group has c! ertain directives or certain ways of doing things, and we would never -- it's that whole separation-of-church-and-state thing -- we would never want to direct institutionally that a person could or couldn't do something," Iasiello said. But the model of chaplaincy advocated by older chaplains such as Iasiello, which hinges on self-restraint, is increasingly under challenge by younger ones, such as Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, 37. Three years ago, Klingenschmitt left the Air Force, where he had been a missile officer for 11 years, and joined the Navy as a chaplain. He took a demotion and a pay cut to make the switch. But he was joyful. "I had been serving my country," he said. "I wanted to serve God." It was not long, however, before disillusionment set in. At the Navy Chaplains School in Newport, R.I., a senior military minister gave Klingenschmitt and other new chaplains a lesson in how to offer prayers in public settings. Classmates who prayed to a generic "God" or "Almighty" won praise. Those who prayed "in the name of Jesus" were counseled to be more sensitive, according to Klingenschmitt. As a minister from a small evangelical denomination, the Evangelical Episcopal Church, Klingenschmitt bristled at those instructions. He wrote a paper citing a Pentagon regulation that "chaplains shall be permitted to conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which they are members." Aboard the USS Anzio, his first post, he backed a Jewish sailor's request to receive kosher meals and tried to get permission for a Muslim crewman to take a turn offering the nightly benediction over the ship's public address system. But Klingenschmitt also insisted on his own right to preach what he believes as a born-again Christian. In July 2004, he was reprimanded for a sermon at the memorial service <B! R>of a sailor who died in a motorcycle accident. The sailor, Klingenschmitt said in a recent interview, was a Catholic, "and I had led him to a born-again experience before he died." In the sermon, he said, he emphasized that the sailor was certainly in heaven and "mentioned in passing" that according to John 3:36, those who do not accept Jesus are doomed for eternity. "My sermon was in the base chapel, it was optional attendance, and it was by invitation. If we can't quote certain scriptures in the base chapel when people are invited to church, where can we quote them?" he said. "Don't paint me as a person who's going around forcing my faith on people. I've never done that." In March, Klingenschmitt's commander recommended against extending his tour in the Navy, writing that he has &
Re: Military Distribution of Bibles
The mass distribution of Bibles to new recruits is generally done by Chaplains, in the chapel, which is optional attendance, and the funding comes from private sources like the Gideons. Campus Crusade for Christ raises alot of money to purchase and distribute New Testaments and gospel tracts to soldiers and sailors, but they do it through the Chaplains. And it's not forced upon them, it's only offered. As a chaplain, I'd love to get government funding for the printing of God's word, like they authorizedvastly in the 1800's, but alas, today it isn't so. If your student can show otherwise, let me know. I'd like to tap that government funding source, and get many more Bibles (smile)... Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt Michael Besso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a political science course on constitutional rights and liberties thatI teach, a student asked about the Armys practice of distributing theBible (perhaps the New Testament only) to new recruits during basictraining. She recalls this from her own relatively recent experience. (Iwent through the Armys basic training some years ago -- lets just saythat, at the time, it was Reagans America -- and I also received aBible, which I believe was the New Testament only, from the basic trainingcommand. To be clear: it was distributed to each soldier, and not merelysomething that I sought out and retained.)The news of developments regarding practices in the Air Force isinteresting, to say the least, but does any list member have insight intothis related issue, of the distribution of Bibles in the military? Doesthe practice conti! nue? Has there been any policy or legal dispute aboutthe issue?Thank you,Michael Besso___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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.
RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Navy chaplain here...hope I'm not intruding...I sincerely admire all of you. Alan said: "I think Chip is absolutely correct that government officials acting in their official capacity have no authority to teach, exhort, or persuade citizens to adopt the officials religious beliefs and that such teaching or exhortation would violate the First Amendment." But certainly, Alan and Chip (and Sandy), you don't really believe youradvocated restriction on religious speech should apply to military chaplains, who act in their official capacity, (wearing an overt religious symbol on their uniform...such as a cross), and are paidtoquote the scripturesduring voluntarily attendedcounseling orchurch services...do you? Why is Mr. Weinstein (and Yale Divinity) trying tomuzzle the chaplains? When four senior chaplains advised my CO to punish me (in writing...see proof documents on my web-site) and try to end my career, literally because I was deemed "insensitive" for praying "in Jesus name" and for quoting John 3:36 during an optionally attended worship service in the base chapel (advertised as a Christian memorial service, honoring the Christian faith of a deceased member of my own flock), really, don't you think they broke the law? I wonder if you'll concede, at least in legal theory (if not in Navy practice), that military chaplains should havemore free speech rights than other officers, when acting in our official religious capacity?Your whole "voluntary/involuntary conversion" issue was at the center of my case...they attended voluntarily...I preached a conversion message...and I was punished for my speech. I won't be offended if you publicly disagree with me. (I'm only a guest here, afterall). But I was surprised and disappointed at how silent the members of this list became, when my story hit the front page of the Washington Post...I even cited manyrelevant militarylaws in two previous posts...nobody said a word about those laws...some even promised me to research and comment later...but never did... The relevant Post clip is below if anybody's brave enough nowthat storydirectly corresponds to this thread.The Posteven quoted Mr. Weinstein against methe same guy who's now suing the Air Force (to silence evenchaplains)...but I wonder if anybody'd defend us poor old chaplains... since I know you all sincerelyvalue freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Don't you? Very respectfully, Navy Chaplain Klingenschmitt www.persuade.tv - From the front page of the Washington Post, by Alan Cooperman. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082902036_pf.html "...But the model of chaplaincy advocated by older chaplains such as Iasiello, which hinges on self-restraint, is increasingly under challenge by younger ones, such as Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, 37. Three years ago, Klingenschmitt left the Air Force, where he had been a missile officer for 11 years, and joined the Navy as a chaplain. He took a demotion and a pay cut to make the switch. But he was joyful. "I had been serving my country," he said. "I wanted to serve God." It was not long, however, before disillusionment set in. At the Navy Chaplains School in Newport, R.I., a senior military minister gave Klingenschmitt and other new chaplains a lesson in how to offer prayers in public settings. Classmates who prayed to a generic "God" or "Almighty" won praise. Those who prayed "in the name of Jesus" were counseled to be more sensitive, according to Klingenschmitt. As a minister from a small evangelical denomination, the Evangelical Episcopal Church, Klingenschmitt bristled at those instructions. He wrote a paper citing a Pentagon regulation that "chaplains shall be permitted to conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which they are members." Aboard the USS Anzio, his first post, he backed a Jewish sailor's request to receive kosher meals and tried to get permission for a Muslim crewman to take a turn offering the nightly benediction over the ship's public address system. But Klingenschmitt also insisted on his own right to preach what he believes as a born-again Christian. In July 2004, he was reprimanded for a sermon at the memorial service of a sailor who died in a motorcycle accident. The sailor, Klingenschmitt said in a recent interview, was a Catholic, "and I had led him to a born-again experience before he died." In the sermon, he said, he emphasized that the sailor was certainly in heaven and "mentioned in passing" that according to John 3:36, those who do not accept Jesus are doomed for eternity. "My sermon was in the base chapel, it was optional attendance, and it was by invitation. If we can't quote certain scriptures in the base chapel when people are invited to church, where can we quote them?" he said.
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Thanks for your question Steve... Chaplains should have more latitude, because it's our primary duty topray and preach our faith, and lead our church.Our first allegiancewhen leading worship (as defined bylaw) is to remain faithful to our beliefs, as taught usby our civilian endorsing bishop (not by the commanding officer). US Code Title 10 Section 6031 says: "An officer in the chaplain corps may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he isa member." The exact text of my sermon is posted at my web-site, and I believe it wasappropriately sensitive, yet faithful to the Bible. If attendees believethe Bible itself is insensitive, I'm sad for them, but I cannot delete portions of the text while remaining true to its meaning.Does the government have legal authority to decide which Bible verses aredeemed "sensitive" enough for government approval, and which are "too insensitive" and therefore forbidden? Because of the religious nature of their speech, Chaplains must have autonomous authority over the content of their prayers and sermons, and not allow the government to censor it. The Supreme Court (1991, Lee vs. Weisman) already ruled that, saying: "The government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds..." And in (Chaplain) Ridgon vs. (SECNAV) Perry (1997) a federal judge already ruled that military chaplains have absolute autonomy over their sermons. This Christian memorial service was one of four held for that Sailor...two "secular" memorials were held on the ship, one for his family in California, and the one I presided at (in the chapel) honored the decedent's faith...I evenpreached the same sermonembraced by the decedent shortly before he died). The crew had many opportunities elsewhere to remember their friend. But my primary sensitivity was toward the deceased. He served his country, and he deserved a Christian burial/memorial. Preaching my faith doesn't make me intolerant of other faiths, it only means I cannot practice their faith, nor can I preach their message.I appointed lay-leaders for other faiths to lead their own groups, I invited Muslims/Jews/Wiccans to teach my religion class (and say the evening prayer), 84% of my Sailors agreed "The Command Chaplain cares for all denominations, regardless of faith or belief" and I led volunteers from all faiths to win six awards for volunteerism, including bestvolunteering small ship in the Navy.All chaplains practice inclusiveness, and yetevangelical Christians are routinely excluded (as you suggest we should be) which explains whyover 60 evangelical chaplains are now involved in a class action lawsuit against the Navy, citing religious discrimination in hiring and promotions, because of our faith, and because discriminatorstell us to "go minister elsewhere," denyingevangelical Sailors who lik! e our sermons the right to hear uspreach their own faith. Very respectfully, Chaplain Klingenschmitt www.persuade.tv Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intoleranceDate: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:45:06 -0400To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduPerhaps some of his sailor mates who were not evangelicals or born again or even Christian would want to attend the memorial service and in doing so would want it to be less sectarian and not include a conversion message. This is not the same as a regularly held service for a particular group. Memorial services are different, even if optional -- or were several different ones held or planned? The devil is in the details. If one does not believe in tolerance and in inclusion in such services, perhaps the military is the wrong place to be. Why should chaplains have more latitude to offend than others? Indeed, should not chaplains be held to an even higher level of sensitivity to the religious diversity in the population being served? Steve On Oct 7, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: When four senior chaplains advised my CO to punish me (in writing...see proof documents on my web-site) and try to end my career, literally because I was deemed "insensitive" for praying "in Jesus name" and for quoting John 3:36 during an optionally attended worship service in the base chapel (advertised as a Christian memorial service, honoring the Christian faith of a deceased member of my own flock), really, don't you think they broke the law? -- Prof. Steven D. Jamarvox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "There are obviously two educations. One should teach us how to make a living and
RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
A few points to answer questions that were raised... 1) ALL chaplains are evangelists, in the sense that they promote their own faith message from the pulpit (even if liberal, or non-Christian, they're still evangelizing and persuading and teaching to convince people their point of view is the right one). 2) ALL chaplains must tell willing attendees about right and wrong. We cannot possibly teach ethics, and counsel Sailors not to steal, not to lie, not to cheat on their wives, unless we have some basis in right vs. wrong. (Unless you want us to teach math instead). Promoting and persuading about morality is central to our mission. Sailors want us totell them the truth about right and wrong. That's why they come to us for counseling, or attend church. They want to know the right answer. They need that. And it's our duty to tell them. 3) Your non-voluntary tax-payer dollars go toward many things with which you disagree, (and so do mine),but I wonder what Congressman (with power of purse) would want to run for re-election saying "yeah, I'm the guy that defunded the chaplain corps, and took religious freedom away from all our Sailors and Marines, who sacrifice to defend religious freedom for others." He'd lose re-election. The American people obviously want this, or the corpswould've been defunded long ago. 4) General George Washington himself noted this tension concerning military chaplains. At one point during the height of the revolution in 1777, Congress reduced the number of chaplain billets, and some of Washington'sofficers complained that TOO FEW chaplains would lead to forced conversions, since the men wouldn't have multiple faith choices for Sunday worship. He recommended to Congress then, to double or triple the number of chaplains (hiring more from variousbeliefs, not just Anglicanism), and give the men more choices. More choice = more religious freedom. 5) Lest anyone thinks I'm in favor of forced religious attendance or forced conversions, the Navy also disciplined me for protesting "government-mandated attendance quotas" to a pro-gay church. They actually ordered quotas, and forced attendance, and I protested, and I was silenced and reprimanded in writing. (Read more at www.persuade.tv ) 6) My personalrule of ministry is this: Don't talk about religion at all, unless there's "invitation-acceptance," and then speak boldly. Either party (Chaplain or Sailor) may initiate the invitation to religious discussion, but if it's not welcomed and agreed to, I become silent. There are too many interested Sailors for me, to chase those uninterested. But if they come willingly, they will hear the truth. If they didn't like the truth they heard, they forfeit their right to complain. 7) Servicemen do have legitimate religious and spiritual needs. It's part of who they are. You can't take away their chaplains anymore than you could take away their dentists.Would you send a Sailor to war withoutaccess to dental care? People have deep spiritual needs, and they come to us for spiritual help.And I care enough to give them the best truth I have. Very respectfully, Chaplain Klingenschmitt Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.___ 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.
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Sincerely, thanks for your questions, Mr. Finkelman. 1) You ask how this Protestant minister could administer last rites to a dying Catholic Sailor. The answer is simple...we're both Christian, and I'd administer Christian rites. Although I'm an Evangelical Episcopal priest, I was raised, baptized, and confirmed as a Roman Catholic, and I remain a member ingood standing today. (Although I'm not obedient to the pope, I share communion with him as a brother in Christ.) In the case of the memorial service, both the deceased Sailor and his parentsagreed I was personally his pastor, (I had led him to a voluntary born-again experience), and therefore I was theright person to preside at his memorial. 2) You ask about Rabbis. Please realize, I advocated so strongly for my Orthodox Jewish Sailor's right to eat Kosher meals, I was disciplined by the Navy, and that's one reason they're literally trying to end my career (read Appendix C on my web-site): http://www.persuaders-club.com/againstgoliath/AppendixCtwosailors.pdf Now memberswith the Jewish Welfare Board have written letters to the Navy trying to save my career. Read this article about my courage helping Jews,at risk of my own career, in the Jewish Week newspaper: http://www.persuaders-club.com/againstgoliath/JewishWeekStewartAin3Jun05.pdf I love the Jewish people, I fear their God, and I'm grateful toJewish Rabbi evangelists (like Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) who led me out of Gentile Barbarianism and taught me to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I don't have an anti-Semitic bone in my body. I owe them my very life. I say this, to preface my (hopefully) gentle criticism of some of my Rabbinical brothers...I'm going to say some bold things herebut perhaps my personal sacrifice, risking my careerto help the Jews more freely practice their faith, hasearned me a right to speak. Mr. Finkelmansupposes that liberals aren't evangelistic, because they don't seek converts.Then why are they trying so hard to convert me? Someaggressive Rabbis, unfortunately, are violentin their efforts to silence Christian preaching (such as the Apostle Paul, before he became Christian). Men like this, even today,don't merely invite me toconvert, they're forcing me to convert with government sword, now entering my chapel, with government power, to forceme to preach a Jewish message, (rather than a Christian one),and publicly say Jewish prayers from the Old Testament (rather than Christian prayers based on the New Testament),advising my commanding officers that if I refuse, I should face military punishment, and literally end my career (taking food off my family's table) for quoting John 3:36, because quoting that scripture may offend some Jews! Really, does my quoting the New Testament in the Protestant Chapel make me anti-Semitic? No. But their responsemayprove my persecutors are anti-Christian. They're coming after me, not the other way around. The main difference between evangelism (good)and prosthelytizing (bad)is one word: PUNISHMENT. In all my sermons, I only invited people to attend, and people attended voluntarily, and no Sailors were ever punished by the government for disagreeing with my preaching. (My evangelism is by invitation, not by coersion.) But that's not how the liberals operate. When MY religious views refused to conform to their liberal view, they intruded upon my worship services, censored my religious speech, and called for military discipline of my faith, with the full weight of the United States government.So really, WHO'S PROSTHELYTIZING WHOM? Some liberals (not all) use unethicalevangelistic tools,such as slandering us with false accusationslike "anti-semitic" and "insensitive" and "intolerant," thenlobbying for government suppression of our preaching, because we're "disturbing the peace."These are their methods and tools of "evangelism" to silence us into practicing their faith. We evangelicals prefer more innocent methods...we advertise, we serve, we volunteer, we feed the poor, and we invite our friends to church, where we teach the Bible. My case proves that(some) liberals are far more aggressiveprosthelytizers than evangelicals. And yet I pray most liberals, and most Rabbis, do not call for government persecution of the evangelical church,but you can't deny that some really do. Please go rebuke them, if you really believe in religious tolerance. Now as law professors,as teachers of our future leaders,will you actually teach your students thatgovernment should agree with them,and side with Mr. Weinstein and Yale Divinity, and enter the Protestant Chapel to silence the chaplain's speechwith military policemen? Sandy? Paul? Chip? Alan? I cannot think you really believe what you're saying. Please keep the government out of my chapel. Please. I hope I've not been disrespectful to anyone. This is a very emotional subject for me. Very respectfully, Chaplain Klingenschmitt Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do
RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Good questions Alan, and thanks for narrowing the scope of this inquiry...let's probe the outer limits, as you suggest. Rigdon v. Perry seems to be the defining case law, and I can live with the federal judge's statement, that short of speech which urges 1) Treason, 2) Violence, 3) Rebellion, the chaplain can say whatever he wants. Issues of "morale" and "unit cohesiveness" are far too vague, since many choose to be easily offended, through no fault of the Bible which is quoted, to which they take offense, regardless of the chaplain who quotes it. In Ridgon v. Perry, several Roman Catholic chaplains spoke up against abortion in the chapel, despite the Clinton administration's attempted prohibition on such speech by government and military officials. Here's what the judge said, among other things, when ruling in the Chaplains' favor: "What we have here is the government's attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains' free exercise and free speech rights, as well as those of their congregants. On its face, this is a drastic act and can be sanctioned only by compelling circumstances. The government clearly has not met its burden. The "speech" that the plaintiffs intend to employ to inform their congregants of their religious obligations has nothing to do with their role in the military. They are neither being disrespectful to the Armed Forces nor in any way urging their congregants to defy military orders. The chaplains in this case seek to preach only what they would tell their non-military congregants. There is no need for heavy-handed censorship, and any attempt to impinge on the plaintiffs' constitutional and legal rights is not acceptable." Could we all agree with the judge on this one? This seems a reasonable standard for me. Clearly the government has a very high burdento meet, before punishing the chaplain. There's no way they could prove they met such a burden in my case. It's not like I yelled "fire" in the middle ofa crowded theatre. Nobody got hurt, except a few feelings. The text of my sermon is here, if anyone doubts I merely explained the meaning of the Bible, verse by verse(and that's all I really did). I wasn't insensitive, Imerely read and paraphrased the text, as I understand it, without malice toward anyone, but in hope that all listeners wouldunderstand its true meaning: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixHSermonThatGotChapsFired.pdf Very respectfully, Chap K.Alan Brownstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect, Chaplain Klingenschmitt, I believe most of the comments on the list on this issue are not directed at your case. Indeed, the focus of most comments were not even on what military Chaplains may or may not say. Certainly that is true for my posts. But since the issue of military chaplains has been raised, let me suggest a few distinctions that might be helpful. When a Chaplain is conducting a service that is properly designated for personnel who share his faith, I think he has broad discretion as to what he may say during that service. The question is what constraints, if any, may limit the exercise of his discretion as a matter of constitutional law and alternatively, what constraints, if any, may military authorities impose on the exercise of his discretion as a matter of military policy. It seems to me that there are several situations where constraints might be permissible. (And I assure you Chaplain Klingenschmitt that the only one of these situations that even remotely bears any relevance to your case, as I understand it, is the last one involving a memorial service. I am trying to probe the outer limits of doctrine in this area. I do not want these examples to be misconstrued as suggesting anything negative about your conduct) If a Chaplains comments placed the physical security of military personnel of other faiths at risk, would such comments justify intervention? That, of course, is the extreme case and it is difficult to imagine anything like that happening today. If a Chaplains comments incited the harassment of military personnel of other faiths, would such comments justify some response from the authorities? If such harassment in fact occurred and could fairly be understood to have been caused by a Chaplains comments, would some kind of intervention be warranted? If a Chaplains comments caused distrust among military personnel of various faiths and undermined moral, that may be a harder case in part because of the indeterminacy of the harm alleged (distrust and loss of morale) and in part because of the difficulty in demonstrating causation. Should we trust the judgment of military authorities in such situations? If a Chaplains comments during a memorial service for a soldier or sailor would be experienced by military personnel of others faiths as disparaging or hurtful to such an extent that they would feel unwelcome at the service and
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
The military cannot regulate the content of worship services,even on base. There's no such thing as an "interdenominational" service, unless the chaplain agrees to conduct one. And ultimately, it's not the judge's perrogative, that belongs to Congress, who already legislated US Code Title 10 Section 6031 Chaplains: "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." Any judge's ruling (when considering an "interdenominational" vs. "strict denominational") must conform to this law, which empowers the chaplain to lead according to his own denomination. I'm an Evangelical Episcopal Priest first, and I'm still accountable to my civilian endorsing bishop. If I don't lead services faithful to my denomination, my bishop can (and should) revoke my endorsement, terminating my military career (literally instantly) even faster thanthe Admirals can. Chap K.Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: even if they cannot be prohibited from attending things off base, it would seem to make sense that the military can regulate such things on base. Sanford Levinson wrote: I'm not sure how important ownership is. The question is what kind of forum is made available to chaplains on what reasonable terms. Though I suppose it is an interesting side question if the military at Camp Lejune, e.g., could prohibit members of the armed forces from attending churches that were viewed as attempting to instill views that were disruptive to the "good order and morale." I assume, but am willing to stand corrected, that members of the armed forces can be prohibited from attending political rallies on such grounds. sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paul FinkelmanSent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 6:45 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intoleranceSandy: I have only just now joined this discussion and see it mostly as a theoreitcal problem. I would like to know a whole lot more about the invasion of the chapel, but for starters, I would assume that the Army owns the chapel, not the Priest? Does that affect things? I think it might.Paul Finkelman Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.___ 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.
RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Thanks Chip, you're right, I wasn'tthorough in my answers to Alan, soI'll try again here Alan asked: * If a Chaplain's comments placed the physical security of militarypersonnel of other faiths atrisk, would such comments justify intervention? That, of course,is the extreme case and it is difficult to imagine anything likethat happening today. My answer is, yes, inciting TREASON, VIOLENCE, OR REBELLION would justify a government investigation of a Chaplain's speech, with appropriate disciplinary action IFcausation is provedbeyond reasonable doubt. * If a Chaplain's comments incited the harassment of military personnel of other faiths, wouldsuch comments justify some response from the authorities? If suchharassment in fact occurred and could fairly be understood to havebeen caused by a Chaplain's comments, would some kind ofintervention be warranted? My answer is,NO, the chaplain cannot be held accountable for others' choice to harass, when the chaplainisn't the one harassing. The term "fairly understood to have beencaused" isn't a high enough legal standard for proof of actual causation. I may buy it if you'd said "proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been caused" but that causation is hard to prove, when the harasser made his own free will choice to harass. And it'd be especially hard to prove, since even the most zealous and aggressivechaplains I know generally encourage (at least publicly)polite evangelism, and never rude evangelism.(Personally I only speak after "invitation-acceptance" and therefore can never harass.) Even at the Air Force Academy, the chaplain who encouraged students to evangelize theirfellow students (perhaps even mentioninghell) was cleared of any wrongdoing, since he did it in the chapel, quoting the Bible,encouraging peer discussion, not coersionbyrank. * If a Chaplain's comments caused distrust among military personnelof various faiths andundermined moral, that may be a harder case in part because ofthe indeterminacy of the harm alleged (distrust and loss ofmorale) and in part because of the difficulty in demonstratingcausation. Should we trust the judgment of military authorities insuch situations? Absolutely not. Perhaps inciting TREASON, VIOLENCE, OR REBELLION would justify a government investigation of a Chaplain's sermons,with appropriate disciplinary action. But morale? Clearly the government's burden, before invading the chapel, is higher than just alleging "he hurt my feelingsby speaking the truth." * If a Chaplain's comments during a memorial service for a soldieror sailor would beexperienced by military personnel of others faiths as disparagingor hurtfulto such an extent that they would feel unwelcome atthe service... Would holding dual services be an acceptablesolution to this last situation? Absolutely! Our deceased Sailor had FOUR memorials. -One candlelight, open microphone, open to all faithssession on the ship, -One 21 gun salute the next day from the back of the ship -My service in the chapel, advertised as a "Christian memorial service" -A formal Catholic funeral for the family in California. -And I suppose a few Sailors toasted him over drinks too...that makes five. People remember their friends in many ways. But MYDUTY to best honor his memory, was to honor his personal religion, and I did so by preaching THE SAME SERMON SCRIPTURESthat he personally embraced before he died. For the government to punish me for that sermon literallydishonors the personal religion of the deceased, a veteran who fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who deserved a proper Christian memorial. Shame on them for dishonoring his memory, and his faith. And to answer Chip's(excellently stated) points... 1) You're right, I'm not prepared toacknowledge ANY establishment clause limits on a chaplain's religious speech from the pulpit in the chapel, unless he incites treason, violence, or rebellion.All military chapel services (even regular Sunday morning services) are "government sponsored" in the sense they're advertised, funded, housed in government facilities. 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 Paulpeople acknowledge the legitimacy of this law. Were you a judge, would you uphold this law as written? I'm asking. 2) Morale and divisiveness are toolow a legal standard, the government must have a higher burden than just "he hurt my feelings" before invading the chapel. 3)I'll concede Mr. Weinstein's righteous disappointment with many of the abuses at the Air Force Academy (where I graduated in 1991, by the way, after leading many student evangelism outreaches), but I won't concede hisallegations involving the chaplain. Yale Divinity complained a chaplain (in the chapel, quoting the Bible) dared to encourage students to
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
To answer the last couple questions I read... Of course, the statute protects Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist chaplains too, and applies equally to mosques, temples, etc, not just churches. Conscientious objectors are administratively discharged from service, often based on a chaplain's interview andrecommendation, so that's another service we do provide, but we cannot advocate disobedience to military orders, which is rebellion. We can't tell Sailors to disobey, but we can advise them to obey their conscience, and advocate withthe commanding officer to respect their conscience, and he must then reasonably offer themdischarge, unless he wants to throw them in jail, which most CO's won't do, because they don't want bad press for coersion against conscience, or allegations of religious harassment. Which is why they should always eagerlygrant discharge, unless they want bad P.R. My CO failed this consideration, in forcing our Orthodox Sailor to remain in the Navy, ordering him to shave his beard, for example, when he cited a sincere religious objection. He should've granted discharge. Civilian pastors can advocate rebellion (civil disobedience), as MLK Jr. did in many churches, without the government invading the church to punish his sermons. So I'll concede military chaplains have more limited (not wider) discretion under the 1st Amendment, when it comes to advocating rebellion, we cannot, while civilian pastors can. But treason and violence are entirely out, as Prime Minister Blair is now advocating to invademosques to promote terrorism. I've no problem with that, if the pastor/imam is calling for treason or violence. A military chaplain who's a rabbi, I think, can advocate for Israel, even if it contradicted political views of the administration,which was the entire point of the Rigdon vs. Perry trial, which sided with the chaplain, as I understand the ruling. "Manner and form" isabsolutely equivalent to "substance and content," despite Steve's attempted distinction. And he said a strange thing here, perhaps I misunderstood... "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." Question: So if the 1st Amendment is the only thing that could override the statute (Title 10 Section 6031), but the 1st A. gives chaplains even broader latitude, then the statute would never be overturned, correct? If the statute is valid, then federal judges must honor it, and side with the chaplain, always, because even the 1st A. requires the judge honor Title 10 Section 6031, which gives the chaplain autonomous rights during all public worship events. If so,Sandy and Steve are conceding, I think, that my memorial service (defined as "public worship" within the meaning of thestatute), lies entirely within the chaplain's autonomous discretion, according to the statute. I may allow individual people to hold private opinions about whether or not I "erred in judgment" (I personally don't think I did, and I'd preach it again that way), but regardless, I will not allow the government to render an official judgment that quoting the Bible is an "error in judgment."Military officialsjust don't have that right, in their official capacity. Their religious coersion and abuse of rank to enforce their faith upon me (and the deceased) is far more aggregious than anything I've heard of at the Air Force Academy, and far worse than any hurt feelings suffered by those who were "shocked" to hearthe Bible quotedin the chapel. Very respectfully, Chaplain K. Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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,
Re: Anti-proselytizing lawsuit against the US Air Force
I'm speechless. No pun intended. Chaplain Klingenschmitt "Volokh, Eugene" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got a copy of the Complaint in this lawsuit (Weinstein v.U.S. Air Force), and here's the claim for relief:26. Plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunctive relief thatthe USAF, Defendant Geren and its senior leadership adopt and adhere tothe following policies:a. No member of the USAF, including a chaplain, is permitted toevangelize, proselytize, or in any related way attempt to involuntarilyconvert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF toaccept their own religious beliefs while on duty.b. The USAF is not permitted to establish or advance any onereligion over another religion or one religion over no religion.Could paragraph (a) possibly be a legitimate demand? Could itreally be that the First Amendment bars individual USAF members fromtrying to "involuntarily . . . persuade" fel! low servicemembers -- notjust subordinates, but also peers -- "to accept their own religiousbeliefs," even "while on duty"?Eugene___ Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.___ 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.
Text of Chaplain Klingenschmitt's speech outside the White House
The text of my speech outside the White House yesterday is pasted below...see also today's front-page story in the Washington Times: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051221-121224-6972r.htmGod Bless, Chaplain K.-- CHAPLAIN KLINGENSCHMITT ANNOUNCES HUNGER STRIKE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, 20 Dec 2005.Text of Chaplain's speech delivered on national TV: "During these holidays people practice many diverse faiths, but it seems the war against Christmas has taken a turn for the worse, and now it's become a war against the name of Jesus himself. I am a Navy Chaplain that may soon be kicked out of the Navy because I pray publicly in Jesus name. Admirals from the Pentagon, claiming to speak for the President of the United States, have already stripped me of my uniform and forbid me to pray in Jesus name in public unless I'm wearing civilian clothes.The Chief of Navy Chaplains told me in writing that if I pray publicly "in Jesus name" that I'm denigrating other faiths. That same week he told the Washington Post "we never tell chaplains how to pray" because we don't want to violate their First Amendment rights. His public statements and private statements contradict.The Naval Chaplain School teaches mandatory lectures to all junior chaplains, prohibiting Muslim chaplains from praying publicly to Allah, Jewish chaplains can't pray in Hebrew to Adonai, Roman Catho! lic chaplains aren't allowed to pray "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and evangelicals can't pray "in Jesus name." Everybody is taught to pray only to God and say "Amen." Senior chaplain evaluators with clipboards criticize our prayers.Onboard my ship, I asked my Commanding officer's permission to take turns and "share the evening prayer" with many diverse faiths, allowing my Muslim Sailor to pray to Allah, my Jewish Sailor to pray in Hebrew to Adonai, my Roman Catholic Sailor to pray "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and I'd just pray "in Jesus name" every fourth night. He said "No Chaps, I don't like that. You keep saying the prayer, but you pray Jewish prayers from now on." I obeyed him and prayed only from the Psalms for 8 months.But the Director of the Naval Chaplain school told my Commanding Officer I was an "immature chaplain" because I claime! d a right to pray "in Jesus name," so my CO wrote to a Navy board to end my career saying "Chaplain Klingenschmitt over-emphasized his own faith system" (i.e. in his sermons and prayers).Now unless a Navy judge intervenes, my active duty career will be terminated next month, my family will be evicted from military housing, I'll have NO retirement after 14 years of award-winning fitness reports, because I pray "in Jesus name."General George Washington prayed "in Jesus name." And since the American Revolution chaplains have been allowed to pray according to their civilian bishop's faith, not the government's faith. Since 1860, US Code Title 10 Section 6031 has mandated, "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."But only in 1998 did the Navy establish a brand-new policy telling us if we must pray "in Jesus name" then we "ought to exclude ourselves from participation as the prayer-giver."65 Navy Chaplains have been involved in a class-action lawsuit since 1999 because of things like this, but Navy IG found "nothing wrong" so Navy JAG spends millions of taxpayer dollars defending religious discrimination.As a Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, I'm directly appealing to my Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush, to sign an executive order enforcing the law that's been on the books since 1860. Now 160,000 Americans and 74 Congressmen have asked the President to sign an Executive order, not to establish new law, but just to enforce the law on the books since 1860, but the President has yet to lift his pen.I find it ironic that Franklin Graham was allowed to pray "in Jesus name" at the President's first inaugural, but now Admirals in the Pentagon who claim to represent the President are trying to take away my uniform for praying "in Jesus name." Even Senator Clinton supports me, and has written a letter of concern on my behalf. Recently the Air Force adopted similar guidelines, and now forces all their chaplains to pray "non-sectarian" prayers. But this government-sanitized prayer policy violates the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that "non-sectarian" prayers are unenforceable.Today I'm beginning a hunger strike, and this communion bread will be my last meal, until the President of the United States gives me back my uniform, and lets me pray publicly "in Jesus name." Please sign the Executive Order Mr. President, and please come and share communion with me.! I'll be standing prayer vigil outside the White House (Lafayette Park) every
Chaplain Klingenschmitt punished for praying in uniform at press conference
Chaplain Klingenschmitt faces possible court-martial because he read the "prayer for the Armed Forces" from the Book of Common Prayer, in uniform, at a press conference outside the White House on 30 Mar 06 with Chief Justice Roy Moore.http://persuade.tv/frenzy3/Reprisal26Pyle.pdfCan the military use uniform policy to stop him from praying, or wouldthis violate RFRA?I promise to be nice to anybody who responds In Jesus name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.___ 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.
RE: More on chaplains
"Agitator" Chaplain Klingenschmitt's comments on the "new" House legislation...1) THE FIRST AMENDMENT ALREADY ALLOWSCHAPLAINS FREEDOM "TO PRAY ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF THEIR CONSCIENCE." (Is any phrase more distinctlyAmerican than this? Even Congressman Israel voted for this, he just wanted more added.) The new House billmerely restores the law to the way it's always been since 1860 (as I shall prove), and rebukesSecretary of Navy's recent effortsto reverse 231 years of Navy history by suddenly censoring excluding, and punishing certain chaplains for the content of their prayers. Ifcommandersallow only "non-sectarian" prayers but punish"sectarian" prayers, the government is clearly favoring a government-established religion, promotingchaplains who comply, and banning all other diverse religions that don't fit the commander's preferred faith. It's always better to "take turns and share the prayer" (even with Sailors of many diverse faiths) than to establish a "litmus test" for which prayers are sufficiently "non-sectarian" and which prayers have "too much Jesus" in them. 2) THE LIBERALS LOST THIS DEBATE IN CONGRESSIN 1859...Read Naval Law Review Volume 51(p. 217), by CDR Wildhack about TITLE 10 SECTION 6031, the history of the exactsame section of US Code now being amended by Congress, here: "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. 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. 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. 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. 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.' No longer merely a regulation, that language is now in force as part of the United States Code." 3) THE ISRAEL AMENDMENT would've required "sensitive" prayers, and outlawed "insensitive" prayers (who decides that?), again requiring commanders to decide which prayer content is "government-approved" and which prayer content should be "government-banned." Isn't it the government's job to NOT DECIDE which prayers are OK? RESPECTING SAILORS RIGHTS REQUIRES WE LET THEM TAKE TURNS AND SHARE THE PRAYER. Sailors can volunteer to become"lay-leaders" (with equal status to a chaplain) and recite prayers according to their own tradition. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY demands equal access to the public microphone, for all diverse faiths equally, not just one "government-sanitized civic religion" that hogs the microphone and excludes all others (especially excluding evangelical chaplains who pray in Jesus name.) 4) The history of this year's remarkable legal battleis here: www.persuade.tv Again I welcome personal calls from your students, and case-studies.I pray in Jesus name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt 719-360-5132 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/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.
Top Navy JAG Judge rules Chaplain properly punished for sermon inoptionally-attended chapel
I'm grateful for Professor Friedman's blogging, and for Marty Lederman's thoughtful views on "speaking as a government employee." But just to remind everybody, US Code and Case Law both clearly define speechby military chaplains as NOT government speech, rather RELIGIOUS speech representing our"civilian bishop endorser" and the church,not the commanding officer or the state. US Code Title 10 Section 6031: "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." And case law Rigdon v. Perry, argued by Roman Storzer, who told us last year... - Roman P. Storzer roman.storzer at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 09:19:31 PDT 2005 An concrete example of this conflict was found in Rigdon v. Perry, 962 F. Supp. 150 (DDC 1997), where Catholic chaplains were ordered not to participate in a pro-life postcard campaign. We argued that worship services were a designated public forum and that the prohibition was viewpoint discrimination. Judge Sporkin held that "the government has, by statute and regulation, institutionalized the provision of religious services in the Armed Services by creating the office of the chaplaincy and by dedicating facilities and personnel . . . . The religious nature of these military facilities, therefore, is wholly compatible with expressive activity; indeed, the very purpose underlying these facilities is expressive, religious activity." One could certainly argue that priests speaking during such services are acting in their "official capacity." The case wasn't appealed. Roman Storzer -The Navy already lost this lawsuit in 1997. The facts are essentially the same: optionally-attended sermon in chapel, punished by the government because of the content of the speech.Why would the Navy nowwant me to sue them again? The only reason I can conclude, is they're afraid to police themselves and fire a Commanding Officer, so they band together to protect the institution, not the Constitution.Chaplain Klingenschmitt 719-360-5132 Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.___ 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.
RE: Rep. Harris (R-Fla.) on Church and State
AlthoughI'm not a lawyer, I am working on my PhD in Theology, and of course my Navy Chaplain issues put me attheintersection of church and state...so perhaps I'm qualified tocomment on Senator-candidate Katherine Harris' comments about "separation" and legislating "God's will." 1) I said essentially the same thing as Ms. Harrisin my 1999interview with US News and World Report (paraphrased from my memory): "Many Americans want to electpoliticians wholegislate tolerance of sin,just so they won't have to forsake their favorite sins. But God will nevermake sin legal. Won't itbe tragic one day, whenAmerican citizens standbefore God to be judged, and say 'but I thought that was legal...' and discover (too late) that God disagrees. Government's highest duty then, is to pass laws God agrees with, lest itdo its citizens an eternal disservice." 2) Many anti-Christians quote "separation of church and state" as if that somehow means Christians aren't allowed to vote. But we who shareChristian values have just as much right to vote, lobby, advocate, publish, and legislate our values as any other citizens.Liberals often use thephrase "separation" as a means to intimidate and silence Christian voters from fully participating. But we will not be silenced, nor shouldwe be intimidated. 3) The First Amendment doesn't prohibit the legislation of "Christian" laws, any more than it prohibits the legislation of "Muslim" values or "Atheist" values or "Sandy Levinson's" values. Theoretically we could organize and legislatethe Ten Commandments directly into the U.S. Constitution, if we had 2/3rdof Senators and 3/4 of the States to vote them in. Perhapsthat would angeranti-Christian voters, but then we're angered by their pro-abortion/pro-homosexual laws too. 4) PresidentBush shouldn't disown her comments, rather it's possible heagrees with her theology. Here's a clip from 1999 interview of Meet The Press: MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Land, The Washington Post reported this: "'I believe God wants me to be president,' the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, quoted George Bush as saying." When did George Bush tell you that? DR. RICHARD LAND: Well, he told me that--he told a group of us that the day he was inaugurated for his second term as governor of the state in 1999.5) I disagree theologically, however,with both of them, if they believe as Katherine Harris says,'God is the one who chooses our rulers.' There's ample evidenceto the contrary, that the Devil himself often chooses our rulers, and evil morals are legislated by those who campaign (and win) on platforms announcing their intention to legislatethe devil's will. Somewrongly assume all "American" laws are the same as "God's" laws. But God himselfdisagrees with many American laws on the books, for example, the new Navy policy that prohibits chaplains from praying "in Jesus name"outside the chapel. Our duty is always to fight the devil, and his laws. 6) When American law conflicts with God's law, Christians have a duty to disobey human law, and obey God's law.Our duty towardcivil disobediencehas been recognized by great Americans throughout history, for example Martin Luther King, Patrick Henry, the Founding Fathers (Declaration of Independence) etc. 7) The very notion of our 3-branch system of Government (President, Congress, Courts) came from the Bible, and is patterned after God's personality, from Isaiah 33:22: "For the LORD is our judge,the LORD is our lawgiver,the LORD is our king;it is he who will save us." We must therefore votewhat God has told our conscience to legislate,what we know is right, and we must never legislate evil. If our government ceases to reflect God's personality, woe to us all, for the devil's tyranny will become a heavy yoke upon our necks, and true Christian Liberty will be lost forever.Gordon James Klingenschmitt www.persuade.tv Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:28:48 -0500From: "Sanford Levinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Law Religion issues for Law Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: RE: Rep. Harris (R-Fla.) on Church and StateSo what will the Bushes do? Is she going to be the second Republican senatorial candidate to be disowned? But the Democratic candidate is scarcely so compatible to Republicans as Joe Lieberman. Incidentally, given her apparent belief that God casts the relevant vote in all elections, will she interpret her own likely repudiation by the voters of Florida as a sign that God may actually support separation? sandyRep. Harris Condemns Separation of Church, State By Jim StrattonOrlando SentinelSaturday, August 26, 2006; A09 ORLANDO, Aug. 25 -- Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not inte
Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
AlthoughCongress didn't pass new legislation,they did order SECNAV and SECAF to rescind their recent (illegal) policies that required "non-sectarian" prayersso the controversial Air Force Guidelines (and Navy policy) are now TOTALLY RESCINDED, and military chaplains are free to pray "in Jesus name" in any public setting. The official Senate/House conference report language can be read here: http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy6/VictoryPolicyRescinded.pdfIn Jesus name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt 719-360-5132 cell www.persuade.tv ---Press Release: VICTORY FOR MILITARY CHAPLAINS WHO PRAY "IN JESUS NAME" To: National DeskContact: Wanda Sanchez, 209-534-9921, [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Chaplain Klingenschmitt, 719-360-5132, [EMAIL PROTECTED] WASHINGTON DC, Sept. 30th /Christian Newswire/ -- 1) Navy and Air Force Chaplains free to pray "in Jesus name" again. 2) Congress orders Secretary of the Navy to rescind "non-sectarian" prayer policy. 3) Congress orders Secretary of the Air Force to rescind "guidelines concerning the exercise of religion."After months of fighting the Navys "non-sectarian" prayer policy, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt rejoiced on Friday as the U.S. Congress took decisive action to overturn recent Navy and Air Force policies that required "non-sectarian" prayers. "Praise be to God, military chaplains can once again pray freely in Jesus name!" Klingenschmitt declared victory. "Although this fight may have cost my career and my pension, it was well worth it, because now at least other chaplains will be given the same religious liberty I was denied."While Senator John Warner blocked language in the Defense Authorization Act to let chaplains pray according to their conscience, Congressman Duncan Hunter held firm and secured non-negotiable language in the "Conference Report" forcing the Navy and Air Force to rescind their "non-sectarian" prayer policies. The official conference report language can be read here: http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy6/VictoryPolicyRescinded.pdfJanet Folger, Founder and President of Faith To Action, declared victory as well: "This conference report has teeth. It restores freedom of speech to military chaplains, it restores the law since 1860 that traditionally let chaplains pray in Jesus name in any setting, and it serves a swift rebuke to Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter. Hes now been ordered by Congress to rescind his illegal policy, and stop his censorship of chaplains prayers. Winter is over, its Summer again, for chaplains who pray in Jesus name." Klingenschmitt also believes this policy change will overturn his recent court-martial conviction. "When my court-martial judge ruled that wearing my uniform during public worship is only safe inside Sunday chapel, but that worshipping in public in uniform can be criminally punished if you disobey orders, he based his ruling on SECNAVINST 1730.7C, that same illegal policy Congress just rescinded. That proves my commanders original order was unlawful, and my court-martial verdict is now legally unenforceable." Klingenschmitt has already written to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, read here: http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy6/LetterToSECDEF22Sep06.pdf To schedule an interview with Chaplain Klingenschmitt or Janet Folger, contact Wanda Sanchez, 209-534-9921, [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Chaplain Klingenschmitt, 719-360-5132, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out. ___ 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.
Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
Perhaps Marty's right about one thing...our modern "enlightened" reading of the Constitution has (sadly) evolved quite a distance from when the founding fathers wrote that beloved document. Here is theorigin ofthatportion of10 USC 6031 (which Marty quoted, but hated) as firstwritten by our Founding Fathers (who knew the Constitution's meaning better than we do, let's admit): One of the first acts of Congress in June, 1775 was to pass Articles of War.There were only 12 of them. Article 2 was basically "Go to church and treat it with respect."Art. II. It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend Divine Service; and all officers and soldiers who shall behave indecently or irreverently at any place of Divine Worship, shall, if commissioned officers, be brought before a court-martial. there to be publicly and severely reprimanded by the President; if non-commissioned officers or soldiers, every person so offending, shall, for his first offence, forfeit One Sixth of a Dollar, to be deducted out of his next pay; for the second offence, he shall not only forfeit a like sum, but be confined for twenty-four hours, and for every like offence, shall suffer and pay in like manner; which money so forfeited, shall be applied to the use of the sick soldiers of the troop or company to which the offender belongs. How far then, Marty, has our nation devolved into anti-Christian decadence, when instead of court-martialing any soldier or officer who misbehaved during divine worship, we now court-martial the chaplain whodares to wear his uniform while "worshipping in public" and we reward the Commanding Officer who entered his chapel and punished him for quoting the Bible in the pulpit? Am I the only oneon this list, who still believesthe wayour Founding Fathers did? Does anybody see the dramatic irony here? Chaplain Klingenschmitt (Federal Convict) Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I decided to take a quick look over at section 6031. Subsection (a), which Chaplain Klingenschmitt quotes, does not provide that chaplains may "pray in Jesus's name" as part of their public services. It's much more modest, and not very objectionable.Subsections (b) and (c), on the otherhand, areunconstitutional relics:(b) The commanders of vessels and naval activities to which chaplains are attached shall cause divine service to be performed on Sunday, whenever the weather and other circumstances allow it to be done; and it is earnestly recommended to all officers, seamen, and others in the naval service diligently to attend at every performance of the worship of Almighty God.(c) All persons in the Navy and in the Marine Corps are enjoined to behave themselves in a reverent and becoming manner during divine service. So I doubt the government will be invoking the authority of section 6031 anytime soon.Oh, and by the way, 6031 isn't much help to Chaplain Klingenschmitt for another reason, too: It's limited to the Navy and Marines. The analogous Air Force statute, 10 USC 8547, much more "appropriately"provides that "[e]ach chaplain shall, when practicable, hold appropriate religious services at least once on each Sunday for the command to which he is assigned, and shall perform appropriate religious burial services for members of the Air Force who die while in that command."- Original Message - From: Marty Lederman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:50 PM Subject: Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"Chaplain Klingenschmitt:With all due respect, this is simple nonsense. 1. Section 6031 does not say that military chaplains may pray "in Jesus's name," and if it did authorize such prayers in the chaplains' official capacities, it would almost certainly violate the Establishment Clause in that respect.2. For reasons we've discussed at great length before, chaplains have no Free Exercise rights to pray in the manner of their choosing when they are acting in their official capacities.3. Citing Lee v. Weisman, and only Lee v. Weisman, for the proposition that the state must permit a state employee to give a sectarian prayer in a public capacity, is just about the most absurd "reading" of a case that I've ever seen. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/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.
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 italways had been since 1860.The origins of the 1860 law were described recently by ournew 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 insightBut it reveals today'stragic ironythe 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 bookin publicthe pendulum swung too far...so now Congress has (wisely) righted itself, to restorereligious 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 ScarberryPepperdine Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/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.
Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
Of course, selfishness is an abhorrent sinmuch to be despisedplease forgive me if anyone supposes my "zeal" is based in selfishnessI shall certainly self-examine and repent if sobut I only ask,was it selfish or unselfish,when I :1) Gave up an award-winningAir Force career and volunteered for a demotion in rank and apay-cut,just to become a Navy chaplain andhelp Sailors?2) LedSailors to feed the homeless every Friday, winning six awards for community service (including best in Navy)?3) Risked my own career by advocating (too strongly) for my Jewish Sailor to have Kosher meals? (Earningrebuke from headquarters, but praise from the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Welfare Board,read here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/ADLforKlingenschmitt.pdf)4) Fought for equal opportunity for Sailors of all diverse faiths to"take turns" and "share the prayer" with my Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic Sailors, allowing them to pray according to their tradition, while I'd only pray "in Jesus name" every fourth turn? (Which proposal my commander denied, telling me to pray "Jewish" prayersread here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixRTwoDeniedProposals.pdf) 5) Compromised my own faith by obediently praying only Jewish prayers (Old Testament Psalms) in public,foreight months before he stillfired me from my ship? 6) Risked my own career by opposing the Navy's "government-mandated church quotas" when senior chaplains forced scores of Sailors to attend a pro-homosexual church? (Read here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AParticleMattKelley30Apr05.pdf)7) Fought only to lose my own $1.8 million pension, my own reputation,myentire career, at criminal conviction, so that other chaplains AND SAILORS would receive the religious liberty I was denied? (Don't assume I'm going topersonally benefit from this...my family willsoon be evicted from military housing...I did this for others, not me.) 8) Quotedthe Bible in the chapel (optional-attendance) in a sermon designed to honor the Christian faith of my deceased Sailor (guaranteeing his right to a Christian burial), and pleading to save the souls of those who voluntarily attended, putting their own eternal salvation ahead of my own reputation, again risking my career? If I were truly selfish, I'dnever have risked my career for the benefit of others, I'd simply have watered-down my prayers and sermons, stopped fighting for religious liberty FOR ALL DIVERSE FAITHS, and gotten quickly promoted to senior chaplain... Chaplain Klingenschmitt"David E. Guinn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.___ 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.
Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
Having lost this debate onits intellectual merits, Mr. Finkelman resorts to personal attacks on my character.Yet I agree with him on one point,that pride is a terrible sin, so I shall here endeavor to humblypracticeProverbs 27:2: "Let another praise you,and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips" lest I appear to toot my own horn. 84% of the Sailors on my ship agreed, "the command chaplain cares for all denominations, regardless of faith or belief. 94% of Americans supported me during my hunger strike, and only 6% supported the Navy's position, in this poll: http://persuade.tv/frenzy/WNDpoll.pdf85% of Americans supported my position on the issue of letting chaplains pray in Jesus name, in this poll: http://persuade.tv/frenzy6/DecaturDaily17Sep06.pdf Ultimately, even public opinion is secondary to God's opinion, and if I have pleased Him then I am justified. Buthaving lost this NATIONAL debate, the anti-Jesus crowd was properly rebuked by the American public (who is decidedly pro-Jesus), and so the Navy and Air Force were ordered by Congress to respect public opinion (and the Constitution), sofreedom of religious _expression_was properly restored.I don't mind the personal insults by Mr.Guinn and Mr. Finkelman, (I've been insulted by better men), but theirlack of intellectual argumentappears very much as "sour grapes." Chaplain Klingenschmitt Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds very much like someone tooting his own horn? Is excessive pridealso a sin? One can only wonder how G-d will respond to someone who brags about hiswork to make outcasts of gay members of the human family. Perhaps theChaplain should try marching a mile or two in the boot of a gay sailoror soldier.I am no expert on the chaplain's faith, but have spent a great deal ofmy life studying religion and this is the first time I have ever heard aChristian assert that praying fomr the Book of Psalms compromised aChristian's faith.Paul FinkelmanPresident William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Lawand Public PolicyAlbany Law School80 New Scotland AvenueAlbany, New York 12208-3494518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.___ 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.
Jesus for President?
Since Eugene gave us the green light to talk politics Below is my op-ed for today's Worldnet Daily, explaining the likely views of four Presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, Brownback, Hunter) on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus name. Jesus for President? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55725 Enjoy! Chaplain Klingenschmitt - - Jesus for president? - Posted: May 17, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Gordon James Klingenschmitt OK, I admit, Jesus Christ is not running for president this year. He promised to return soon enough, to assume public office, but meanwhile, where do the 2008 presidential candidates stand on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus' name? I'm not naming names, but let's start with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. When the Navy punished me, a chaplain, for quoting the Bible in the chapel during optionally attended Christian worship, I faxed a formal whistleblower complaint to my New York senator, asking for help. Did she protect her evangelical chaplain? No. I called her office nearly every day, but nobody returned my phone calls for weeks, until finally, I voice-mailed her press secretary about my interview with Jewish Week newspaper, telling how I was punished for requesting Kosher meals for my Jewish sailor. Shall I tell them Senator Clinton doesn't care about Jewish service members? I asked. Fearing bad press, Clinton signed a letter of inquiry to the Navy for me that same day. But later, after Navy officials justified to her how I was also properly punished for praying in Jesus' name and how chaplains really should pray non-sectarian prayers in public, my sources witnessed Sen. Clinton taking bold action against me. Opposing a House bill to let chaplains pray according to their faith, Clinton personally attended meetings to block our legislation, preferring to let the Pentagon censor our prayers. Sen. Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't any better. While campaigning in Iowa last month, Obama was asked his opinion about Judge Roy Moore, who couldn't display the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, and about me, a chaplain who was discharged for praying in uniform. First, Sen. Obama falsely claimed he wasn't aware of the chaplain situation, when I'd personally faxed my whistleblower complaints to his office, and his staff acknowledged placing them on his desk. Even worse, Obama disrespected the Ten Commandments, claiming, If you are not a believer, there would be a feeling that you wouldn't be treated as fairly as a Christian. We want everybody to feel they are treated equally. Apparently, Obama believes God's Ten Commandments are unfair since they might hurt people's feelings (as if his pro-abortion laws don't hurt the feelings of the unborn). Would President Obama appoint judges who oppose Roy Moore and would jackhammer the 44 displays of the Ten Commandments from our U.S. Supreme Court? He still won't debate Judge Moore on the subject, yet Barrack Hussein Obama campaigns like a good Christian, soft-pedaling his Muslim upbringing. Conversely, Sen. Sam Brownback votes like he says he believes. When I first came to Washington, D.C., Sen. Brownback welcomed me to speak at his weekly Values Action Team meeting, where I enlisted dozens of pro-family groups and senators to vote for allowing prayers in Jesus' name. Brownback personally wrote President Bush to help chaplains, and when our legislation came to the Senate, Sam Brownback again reminded Values Action Team members to stand up for religious liberty. (But he'd never brag about this; he's too humble.) If elected, I've no doubt President Brownback would immediately sign an executive order protecting all chaplains' right to pray according to their faith. Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter also went to bat for chaplains. Leading 75 members of Congress with Walter B. Jones, Rep. Hunter (then chairman of the House Armed Services Committee) personally wrote and passed a House bill to let chaplains pray according to their faith. But when his bill got blocked by liberal senators, did he quit? No. Fighting to the last, Duncan Hunter helped negotiate a compromise with the Pentagon, forcing them to rescind their bad Navy prayer policy, even letting Air Force chaplains pray publicly in Jesus' name. As commander in chief, I've no doubt Duncan Hunter would force the Pentagon to respect the 1860 law and once again let chaplains pray freely. Will our next commander in chief protect chaplains? Although Jesus isn't running for president, I remember his warning to discern true prophets from false: By their fruit ye shall know them. The fruit of these candidates Clinton, Obama, Brownback, Hunter may
Re: Jesus for President?
Great questions, Susan and Paul On the contrary, true separation would require the military chaplain prays the same way his civilian bishop requires (even in public), NOT the way the commanding officer orders him to pray. When a commander orders a chaplain to censor his public prayers, violate his religious orders, and pray to the government's civic god or face government punishment, (as I faced), certainly the government has established (and enforced) a non-sectarian state religion, and forced it on all chaplains and all Sailors of diverse faiths. The better solution is to take turns and let each pray according to the dictates of his own conscience, without enforcing conformity to one government-sanitized faith expression. Federal law agrees with me, and since 1860 has protected chaplains rights, today codified in 10 USC 6031: 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. And the Supreme Court has already ruled against government enforced non-sectarian prayer content in 1991 Lee vs. Weisman: The government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds...The State's role did not end with the decision to include a prayer and with the choice of clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi Gutterman with a copy of the Guidelines for Civic Occasions and advised him that his prayers should be nonsectarian. Through these means, the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the only sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi would not be invited back, we think no religious representative who valued his or her continued reputation and effectiveness in the community would incur the State's displeasure in this regard. It is a cornerstone principle of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government, Engel v. Vitale, (1962), and that is what the school officials attempted to do. Susan, Paul, do you disagree with the statute, or with the Supreme Court's interpretation? Incidentally, somebody asked if I'm still a chaplain, and the answer is yes, because my church ordained me for the ministry of chaplaincyalthough I'm no longer a lieutenant and no longer an officerhaving been honorably discharged after 15.5 years. I pray in Jesus name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clearly he neither sees a violationa, nor believes that there should be a separation. Paul Finkelman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/18/07 4:10 AM Surely you should be allowed to say any prayer you want, in private. To give a Christian prayer in church is no problem for me, and if you pray to Jesus in a military service for Christians, fine. To pray to Jesus in a general military service is improper, and I see problems with any law which expressly allows you to do that. I respect your feeling deeply about what you see as an important issue. Allow me to feel equally deeply about your imposing a Christian prayer on non-Christians. You don't see a violation of the separation of church and state here? Susan Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: Since Eugene gave us the green light to talk politics Below is my op-ed for today's Worldnet Daily, explaining the likely views of four Presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, Brownback, Hunter) on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus name. Jesus for President? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55725 Enjoy! Chaplain Klingenschmitt WND Exclusive Commentary Jesus for president? Posted: May 17, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Gordon James Klingenschmitt OK, I admit, Jesus Christ is not running for president this year. He promised to return soon enough, to assume public office, but meanwhile, where do the 2008 presidential candidates stand on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus' name? I'm not naming names, but let's start with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. When the Navy punished me, a chaplain, for quoting the Bible in the chapel during optionally attended Christian worship, I faxed a formal whistleblower complaint to my New York senator, asking for help. Did she protect her evangelical chaplain? No. I called her office nearly every day, but nobody returned my phone calls for weeks, until finally, I voice-mailed her press secretary
Victory for prayer in Jesus name?
ACLU just lost their case against prayer in Jesus name by Louisiana school board. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070727/28638_Judges_Overturn_Ban_on_School_Board_Prayer.htm This victory by ADF is worthy of celebration and wide-spread publicity. In Jesus name, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt 719-360-5132 cell --- Judges Overturn Ban on School Board Prayer By Doug Huntington Christian Post Reporter Fri, Jul. 27 2007 12:41 PM ET A Louisiana school district that has been riddled with religious lawsuits got some backing Wednesday after a panel of judges overturned a decision that had formerly barred them from opening their meetings with prayer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the Tangipahoa Parish School Board which has had five religious-related lawsuits brought against it in the past 13 years could not be held accountable for an offended observer and has the right to have voluntary prayer at their meetings. According to attorneys from the faith-based legal group Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the decision severely undercuts the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been filing the suits, in their use of the Establishment Clause. The court today has delivered a serious blow to the ACLU by affirming that the far left can no longer bully its way into court without any proven, concrete injury, explained ADF senior legal counsel Mike Johnson in a statement. Johnson presented the oral argument on behalf of the school board defendants on May 22. Simply claiming that one is offended by religious speech or symbols is not enough to spark a federal case, he added. For several decades, the Louisiana school board has opened all their meetings with prayer. But in October 2003, the ACLU sued the board on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff, claiming that the practice offended him. After it went to trial, a decision was made in February 2005 by federal district court judge Ginger Berrigan, who also happened to be a former state president of the ACLU. In the ruling, she called for the board to permanently cease the prayers, because she argued that it was violating the plaintiffs rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Following the situation, attorneys from ADF and their co-counsel from the law firm Adams and Reese filed an appeal, and the court granted their request. After looking over the case, the 5th Circuit judges decided to overturn the district courts opinion, with a majority statement explaining that it spares this court from issuing a largely hypothetically-based ruling on issues of broad importance to deliberative public bodies in this circuit and beyond. The board members will now be able to resume their prayers at meetings. The practice of opening public meetings with prayer is and always has been lawful and appropriate, added Johnson. The Constitution does not ban citizens or elected officials from invoking divine guidance and blessings upon our public work. Other lawsuits that ACLU attorneys have brought up against the Tangipahoa Parish School Board include allowing the evangelical group Gideons International to hand out Bibles during school hours and allowing a pizza preacher who distributes pizza and teaches Christianity during lunch. - Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. ___ 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.
Two Big Victories for Prayer In Jesus' Name
Two major victories for public prayer in Jesus' name were just declared in the Indiana and Ohio legislatures, but three new battles rage in Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina where legislators are considering banning Jesus prayers. Please enjoy my WND commentary, pasted belowalso online at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58464 In Jesus name, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt -- This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58464 Friday, November 2, 2007 - - 2 victories for Jesus prayers - Posted: November 2, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Gordon James Klingenschmitt - © 2007 Two major victories for public prayer in Jesus' name were just declared in the Indiana and Ohio legislatures, but three new battles rage in Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina where legislators are considering banning Jesus prayers. In Indiana, the ACLU lost another lawsuit, when the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a bad ruling by a liberal judge who had ordered praying to Jesus was illegal on the floor of the Indiana House. The appeals court restored liberty this week, ruling that easily offended bystanders have no legal standing to sue, since no taxpayer dollars were spent promoting prayer. Judge Roy Moore, who filed an amicus brief to defend the courageous former Republican Speaker Brian Bosma and current Democrat Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, said of the victory: Thankfully, the Court of Appeals in Hinrichs [v. Indiana Speaker Bosma] reversed the absurd prayer censorship order of the lower court, which means the Indiana House of Representatives does not have to tell its invited clergy that the name of Jesus cannot be uttered in their prayers. Undaunted, the ACLU vowed to sue Indiana again soon. In Ohio, Republican House Speaker Jon Husted reversed his temporary ban on Jesus prayers, overruling the easily offended Minority Leader Chris Redfern, who had walked out in protest when a pastor prayed in Jesus' name. When two WorldNetDaily commentaries by myself and Janet Folger exposed Refern as a whiner, Speaker Husted was besieged by phone calls from pastors and citizens who demanded liberty be restored. After hearing Ohio Christian Alliance director Chris Long, Speaker Husted found his backbone and restored liberty, saying: I will not allow for our prayers to be censored prayer is a time of reflection and guidance, a time which should not be governed by political advocacy or personal opinion. Perhaps he realized 85 to 94 percent of voters want to give chaplains freedom. Former Ohio ACLU legal director Raymond Vasvari admitted that government inviting a minister to speak and then vetting the prayer is akin to illegal prior restraint. (Apparently, that's why he's former legal director too Christian for ACLU?) Despite these victories, Pennsylvania legislators are considering abolishing prayer in Jesus' name under fear of lawsuits. This week, the anti-Jesus group Americans United (To Abolish the Church with State Sword?) intimidated four Keystone state senators, demanding they ban prayers to Jesus on the Senate floor. These four senators might cave in just to avoid offending AU's professional complainers. But I wonder if Pennsylvania voters will contact their senators like those courageous Ohioans? And I wonder if these Pennsylvania senators will find the nerve to win a lawsuit like the courageous bipartisan Indiana speakers did? The Alliance Defense Fund offers them pro-bono defense. I've written my personal letter and e-mailed and phoned these four senators. Now I'm forwarding this article to every Pennsylvania citizen (especially pastors) I can. Will everybody do the same? AU also threatened Florida commissioners in Osceola County to ban Jesus prayers, saying they hope things will be resolved without any legal action, but they aren't sure what they will do next. I pray Floridians will encourage these commissioners to defend free speech. In North Carolina, two town councils in Fayetteville and Cumberland County recently banned Jesus prayers. By selectively misquoting two contradictory rulings by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, the big-city ACLU lawyers apparently confused the small-town country lawyers into frightened submission. Yes, it's true the 4th Circuit prevented a legislature from requiring ALL prayers MUST end in Jesus' name (2004 Wynne v. Town of Great Falls). But they essentially reversed themselves in 2005, opening a big loophole (Simpson v. Chesterfield), ruling diverse prayers to the God of Abraham, of Moses
Re: alarming new law?
Actually, Jean and Susan, you've already lived long enough to see a House resolution like this passed honoring other religionsincluding Islamunanimously this year. The hypocrisy by these nine Democrats, however, who apparently voted yes to honor Islam but voted no and refused to give Christianity the same honor, speaks volumes about the left's religiously intolerance toward Christianity, especially in light of the right's religious tolerance of all faiths equally. --Gordon James Klingenschmitt (Merry Christmas, in Jesus' name...) Read the AP version here (underline added): CAPITOL HILL (AP) -- The U.S. House has passed a resolution Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith -- but it wasn't unanimous. The measure was approved by a vote of 372-to-9, with all of the no votes cast by Democrats. A similar resolution recognizing the importance of Ramadan and the Islamic faith was passed unanimously in October. The 9 votes against the Christmas resolution were cast by Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of New York; Diana Degette of Colorado; Alcee Hastings of Florida; Jim McDermott of Washington; Bobby Scott of Virginia; and Barbara Lee, Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey of California. -- Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not a law, it's a non-binding resolution. Legally, it's pabulum. Still, it's a waste of the House's time, IMO. What effects it has on society at large is up for speculation. I see it as indicative of a wider mindset that Christians are persecuted here and the world over. Of course they are; As are Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, and every other cultural subset. Susan, you and I will not live to see a resolution like this passed for any other religion in the good ol' US of A. Jean On Dec 15, 2007, at Sat, Dec 15, 8:49 PM, Susan Freiman wrote: This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~` PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It is deplorable that in this day and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with preferential language in support of a single religion. David Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted, Te First Amendment Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should respect the intent of the Founders. We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a climate in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated equally. __._,_.___ ___ 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
Petition to depublish CA homeschooling decision
HSLDA has a nation-wide petition to depublish the recent California homeschooling decision, here: https://www2.hslda.org/Registrations/DepublishingCaliforniaCourtDecision/ Also, CA home school mom says 'we will have to move' Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 3/10/2008 9:15:00 AM http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=69301 Home schooling parents are reacting to a recent California appellate court decision outlawing the practice. Kathleen, a home school mom from near Sacramento was caught completely off guard when she learned that a three-judge panel considering a child welfare case -- had issued a blanket ruling declaring that California parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children. (see related story) I'm just shocked that it can happen quickly -- that our fundamental right to educate our children can be taken away just with a snap of the fingers... she exclaims. The home school mother hopes that legal groups like the Pacific Justice Institute, Alliance Defense Fund, Home School Legal Defense Association and others will be successful in having the ruling overturned. We will not give up home schooling our child, she states. If it means moving from out of state, however we have to do that, we will do it because that is what we feel that God has called us to do. Kathleen says she and her husband have not had much chance to discuss the issue beyond that basic decision. Even Kathleen's nine-year-old son understands what is happening to parental rights in his home state. He said to me, 'This is like that bad man,' which he couldn't think of his name, 'in Germany. That's what it reminds me of,' she continues. And I was surprised at his perception, that he actually considered that a comparison. Adolf Hitler outlawed home schooling in Germany in 1938. The practice is still illegal in re-unified Germany to this day. - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.___ 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.
Governor and Assembly resolve to overturn CA homeschooling decision
In Answer to CA Ruling against Homeschool, Assemblyman Joel Anderson Introduces New Resolution in Legislature Karen England (March 12, 2008) As we move forward with our defense of homeschooling, it is imperative that we make our voices heard. Shockwaves continue to reverberate throughout the country after last week's unbelievable Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District ruling that attacked parents' rights to homeschool in California. In response to the ruling, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger firmly declared his belief that homeschooling should remain legal by stating, Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will. CRFI ally Assemblyman Joel Anderson has taken the first step in protecting parents' rights to home school by introducing a concurrent resolution in the Assembly, calling on the California Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision. The text of the resolution is below. As we move forward with our defense of homeschooling, it is imperative that we make our voices heard. Every concerned California resident should call their assemblyman and senator and urge them to become a co-sponsor of Assemblyman Anderson's homsechool resolution. Please take just a few moments today to call your legislators and urge them to support parental rights and home education by co-sponsoring this important resolution. For more information, click on the link provided. Assembly Concurrent Resolution: WHEREAS, Some thirty years of experience with the modern homeschooling movement in California demonstrates that home school graduates take up responsible positions as parents, as students in and graduates of Colleges and Universities, in the workplace, and as citizens in society at large; and WHEREAS, Homeschooling by California families with diverse backgrounds has historically given children a quality education through proven, independent approaches that nurture valuable family bonds and support successful student development; and WHEREAS, private homeschooling has a long and rich history in the State of California, currently estimated as involving 200,000 students in the State of California, and 2,000,000 students nationwide; and WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of their children (Wisconsin v. Yoder, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska); and WHEREAS, On February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles issued an opinion in the case of In Re: Rachel L. holding that homeschooling without a teaching credential is not legal; and WHEREAS, This misguided interpretation denies California parents' primary responsibility and right to determine the best place and manner of their own children's education; and WHEREAS, The fair opportunity of California families to educate their children should not be undermined; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, that the Legislature hereby calls upon the California Supreme Court to reverse the opinion. RESOLVED, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution. Source: Capitol Resource Institute - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.___ 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.
California Court vacates homeschooling decision
The California Court of Appeal has vacated their own bad decision and will rehear the homeschooling case. ADF and PJI press releases below. In Jesus name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt --- ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND NEWS RELEASE March 26, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT ADF MEDIA RELATIONS: (480) 444-0020 or www.telladf.org/pressroom Calif. Court of Appeal agrees to reconsider homeschooling case Court grants petition for rehearing filed by attorneys with ADF LOS ANGELES The California Court of Appeal agreed Tuesday to a request by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund to reconsider a Feb. 28 decision making most homeschooling a crime in the state. Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children, said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. Because this ruling impacts all Californians, we believe the case deserves a second look. We look forward to presenting this case for rehearing. Ruling against a child enrolled at Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program, the California Court of Appeal found, in the case In re: Rachel L., that parents who educate their children at home could be criminally liable under California law (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4421). Another look at this case will help ensure that the fundamental rights of parents are fully protected, said ADF-allied attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation (www.usjf.net). ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. www.telladf.org Pacific Justice Institute has just received word that the court ruling which declared most forms of homeschooling unlawful in California has been vacated. This means the Rachel L. decision, which has sparked a nationwide uproar, will not go into effect as it is currently written. The Second District Court of Appeal has instead decided to re-hear the case, with a new round of briefings due in late April. It would likely take the court several additional months to schedule oral argument and issue another decision. Todays announcement by the court that it will re-hear the case reinforces PJIs position that homeschooling families should continue their current programs without fear of governmental interference. PJI will be actively involved in the upcoming briefs and will continue to post updates and special bulletins on this vital issue. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has decided to re-hear the Rachel L. case, and we are hopeful that the fundamental rights of these parents, our clients Sunland Christian School, and the tens of thousands of homeschooling families in California will be honored. Homeschooling parents should be treated as heroesnot hunted down or harassed by their own government. The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827-6600 - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.___ 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.
RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
Ed writes about teaching about the Bible (as an optional elective) in public schools, the result is going to be very ugly and very expensive. Yet leading cultural indicators show that since 1960 in America, violent crime has increased by 560 percent, illegitimate birth rates have increased more than 400 percent, teen suicide is up over 200 percent, the divorce rate has more than doubled, and the percentage of families headed by a single parent has more than tripled. It seems to me, thanks to courts and judges that enforce state atheism and Ed's social experiment upon our families and children, by taking Bibles and prayer OUT of public schools, that... the result has already been very ugly and very expensive. In Jesus name, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that much more guidance is needed (along the lines suggested in the consensus guidelines we issued in 2000 -- The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6261. What puzzles me, however, is why the State Board fails to mention the requirements for training as outlined in Section 21.549 of the Texas Bible Bill. Perhaps that is the next step... but there is no mention of it in the the board's decision this week. If the training requirements mandated by the bill are followed, then many of the problems might be avoided... But with groups out there pushing unconstitutional Bible materials (such as those at issue in the recently-settled lawsuit in Odessa) it will be difficult to monitor what is going on across the state. Charles Haynes 21.459. BIBLE COURSE TRAINING. (a) The commissioner shall develop and make available training materials and other teacher training resources for a school district to use in assisting teachers of elective Bible courses in developing: (1) expertise in the appropriate Bible course curriculum; (2) understanding of applicable supreme court rulings and current constitutional law regarding how Bible courses are to be taught in public schools objectively as a part of a secular program of education; (3) understanding of how to present the Bible in an objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages religion, nor is taught from a particular sectarian point of view; (4) proficiency in instructional approaches that present course material in a manner that respects all faiths and religious traditions, while favoring none; and (5) expertise in how to avoid devotional content or proselytizing in the classroom. (b) The commissioner shall develop materials and resources under this section in consultation with appropriate faculty members at institutions of higher education. (c) The commissioner shall make the training materials and other teacher training resources required under Subsection (a) available to Bible course teachers through access to in-service training. (d) The commissioner shall use funds appropriated for the purpose to administer this section. Charles Haynes The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center 555 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 202/292-6293 - office 703/683-1924 home office From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed Brayton Sent: Tue 7/22/2008 1:56 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com Having seen some of the material already at use in many Bible courses in Texas, I can only say that the State board of education is being incredibly irresponsible in not spelling out exactly what can and can't be taught in such classes. Local school districts are inevitably going to teach this course in constitutionally dubious ways without such guidance. Terri Leo claims that providing such guidelines might lead to a lawsuit; not providing them is going to lead to many such suits - and sooner rather than later. They are doing the same thing the Louisiana legislature is doing with the recent academic freedom legislation, inviting local schools into a Dover trap. The result is going to be very ugly and very expensive. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibbens, Daniel G. Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:20 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com Justice Brennan's well-known statement, concurring in Schempp, 374 US at 300: teaching about the Bible in classes in literature or history is permissible. As literature, surely teaching about the Bible is different from other literature items, distinctively involving the necessity of treating these issues: The fact that some people believe it (or some of it) is the word of God -- others believe that it is essential to understanding their religion -- others believe it is interesting
RE: A plea for keeping things precise (and providing citations whenever possible)
. Incompetence, weak academics, bad religion -- it's a bad brew. When the state board ignores the state's leading Bible scholars, the state's teachers and teacher organizations, and even the sponsor of the Bill, there's evil afoot. And when we try to increase the AP offerings, which feature increased study of both Christianity and the Bible, these same people complain. Something's rotten in Texas. There's prayer in the schools, but sadly, that's all the students have. No wonder crime, illicit sex are up, and academic achievement is down. The kids are following the State School Board's examples, ignoring all authority, making their own, unanchored moral decisions, ignoring the best information, etc. By the way, I don't think the divorce rate has doubled. I think it's dropping, in fact. Anybody got a current statistic? Ed Darrell Working in Dallas to get the curriculum planned out for 2008-2009, no thanks to the State School Board Gordon James Klingenschmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed writes about teaching about the Bible (as an optional elective) in public schools, the result is going to be very ugly and very expensive. Yet leading cultural indicators show that since 1960 in America, violent crime has increased by 560 percent, illegitimate birth rates have increased more than 400 percent, teen suicide is up over 200 percent, the divorce rate has more than doubled, and the percentage of families headed by a single parent has more than tripled. It seems to me, thanks to courts and judges that enforce state atheism and Ed's social experiment upon our families and children, by taking Bibles and prayer OUT of public schools, that... the result has already been very ugly and very expensive. In Jesus name, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that much more guidance is needed (along the lines suggested in the consensus guidelines we issued in 2000 -- The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6261. What puzzles me, however, is why the State Board fails to mention the requirements for training as outlined in Section 21.549 of the Texas Bible Bill. Perhaps that is the next step... but there is no mention of it in the the board's decision this week. If the training requirements mandated by the bill are followed, then many of the problems might be avoided... But with groups out there pushing unconstitutional Bible materials (such as those at issue in the recently-settled lawsuit in Odessa) it will be difficult to monitor what is going on across the state. Charles Haynes 21.459. BIBLE COURSE TRAINING. (a) The commissioner shall develop and make available training materials and other teacher training resources for a school district to use in assisting teachers of elective Bible courses in developing: (1) expertise in the appropriate Bible course curriculum; (2) understanding of applicable supreme court rulings and current constitutional law regarding how Bible courses are to be taught in public schools objectively as a part of a secular program of education; (3) understanding of how to present the Bible in an objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages religion, nor is taught from a particular sectarian point of view; (4) proficiency in instructional approaches that present course material in a manner that respects all faiths and religious traditions, while favoring none; and (5) expertise in how to avoid devotional content or proselytizing in the classroom. (b) The commissioner shall develop materials and resources under this section in consultation with appropriate faculty members at institutions of higher education. (c) The commissioner shall make the training materials and other teacher training resources required under Subsection (a) available to Bible course teachers through access to in-service training. (d) The commissioner shall use funds appropriated for the purpose to administer this section. Charles Haynes The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center 555 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 202/292-6293 - office 703/683-1924 home office From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed Brayton Sent: Tue 7/22/2008 1:56 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com Having seen some of the material already at use in many Bible courses in Texas, I can only say that the State board of education is being incredibly irresponsible in not spelling out exactly what can and can't be taught in such classes. Local school districts are inevitably going to teach this course in constitutionally dubious ways without such guidance. Terri Leo claims that providing such guidelines might lead to a lawsuit
RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
1) Brayton seems to be confusing myth with statistical correlated fact, that when we stopped teaching Biblical morality, children stopped behaving according to Biblical morality. Nobody here disputes violent crime, divorce, teen pregnancy, teen suicide, and single-parenthood have increased since 1960. If nobody here cares (as Ed supposes) about the social consequences of radical interpretations, we truly have become a cold, calloused, nation of selfish lawyers indeed. 2) Brayton's view that Bibles should be banned from schools remains on the atheist fringe of constitutional legal scholars, including the U.S. Supreme Court has held that public schools may teach students about the Bible as long as such teaching is presented objectively as part of a secular program of education. (6School District of Abington Twp v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963). See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980) (per curiam)). 3) This permissive view Supreme Court view is endorsed by both liberal and conservative legal scholars, in Charles' excellent document The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6261) including: American Association of School Administrators American Federation of Teachers American Jewish Committee American Jewish Congress Anti-Defamation League Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs Christian Educators Association International Christian Legal Society Council on Islamic Education National Association of Evangelicals National Association of Secondary School Principals National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. National Council for the Social Studies National Education Association National School Boards Association People for the American Way Foundation Union of American Hebrew Congregations 4) When Brayton places himself far left of People for the American Way, you can tell he's on the fringe, and I'm in the mainstream. But at least he's highly educated, unlike the rest of these organizations, who seem to agree with me. In Jesus, Chaplain K., Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:This list is for discussion of the legal and constitutional issues, not for the imagined social consequences. Im afraid youll have to peddle the myth that the country went to hell when we kicked God out of schools to a different (perhaps less educated) audience. Ed Brayton From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon James Klingenschmitt Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:53 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com Ed writes about teaching about the Bible (as an optional elective) in public schools, the result is going to be very ugly and very expensive. Yet leading cultural indicators show that since 1960 in America, violent crime has increased by 560 percent, illegitimate birth rates have increased more than 400 percent, teen suicide is up over 200 percent, the divorce rate has more than doubled, and the percentage of families headed by a single parent has more than tripled. It seems to me, thanks to courts and judges that enforce state atheism and Ed's social experiment upon our families and children, by taking Bibles and prayer OUT of public schools, that... the result has already been very ugly and very expensive. In Jesus name, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that much more guidance is needed (along the lines suggested in the consensus guidelines we issued in 2000 -- The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6261. What puzzles me, however, is why the State Board fails to mention the requirements for training as outlined in Section 21.549 of the Texas Bible Bill. Perhaps that is the next step... but there is no mention of it in the the board's decision this week. If the training requirements mandated by the bill are followed, then many of the problems might be avoided... But with groups out there pushing unconstitutional Bible materials (such as those at issue in the recently-settled lawsuit in Odessa) it will be difficult to monitor what is going on across the state. Charles Haynes 21.459. BIBLE COURSE TRAINING. (a) The commissioner shall develop and make available training materials and other teacher training resources for a school district to use in assisting teachers of elective Bible courses in developing: (1) expertise in the appropriate Bible course curriculum; (2) understanding of applicable supreme court rulings and current constitutional law regarding how Bible courses are to be taught in public schools objectively as a part of a secular program of education; (3) understanding of how to present the Bible
Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Press release below. Please forward widely. Please call for interviews! In Jesus, Chaplain K. Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'In Jesus' Name' Contact: Chaplain Klingenschmitt, www.PrayInJesusName.org, 719-360-5132 cell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] WASHINGTON, July 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that the city council of Fredericksburg, Virginia had proper authority to require non-sectarian prayer content and exclude council-member Rev. Hashmel Turner from the prayer rotation because he prayed in Jesus' name. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the decision, said: The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in nature is designed to make the prayers accessible to people who come from a variety of backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular faith. Ironically, she admitted Turner was excluded from participating solely because of the Christian content of his prayer. A full text copy of the decision, with added commentary by Chaplain Klingenschmitt is here: www.PrayInJesusName.org/Frenzy13/AgainstOconnor.pdf Gordon James Klingenschmitt, the former Navy chaplain who faced court-martial for praying in Jesus name in uniform (but won the victory in Congress for other chaplains), defended Rev. Hashmel Turner: The Fredericksburg government violated everybody's rights by establishing a non-sectarian religion, and requiring all prayers conform, or face punishment of exclusion. Justice O'Connor showed her liberal colors today, by declaring the word 'Jesus' as illegal religious speech, which can be banned by any council who wishes to ignore the First Amendment as she did. Councilman Rev. Hashmel Turner should run for mayor, fire the other council-members, and re-write the prayer policy. And if he appeals to the Supreme Court, I pray he will win, in Jesus' name. For media interviews, call: Chaplain Klingenschmitt 719-360-5132 cell Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web address: www.PrayInJesusName.org Source: http://christiannewswire.com/news/558917273.html ___ 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.
Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Ms. Jean Dudley exactly makes my point! (Albeit in more colorful language :). Governments should not pray as governments, nor establish non-sectarian religion as the government's favored religion or the government's favored non-sectarian god. ON THE CONTRARY, our form of government was established to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America... which means PROTECTING each citizen's right to speak their mind, and pray according to personal conscience, (even in government forums, even as public officials), taking turns with equal opportunity. Governments do not have souls, and cannot be religious, but government officials do have souls, so they never shed their personal religion and personal rights at the door. John Whitehead with The Rutherford Institute has vowed to appeal Rev. Turner's case to SCOTUS, with this great quote: This ruling shows exactly how dangerous the government speech doctrine isit extinguishes free speech, stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. If the government can censor speech on the grounds that it is so-called government speech, it will not be long before this label becomes a convenient tool for silencing any message that does not conform to what government officials deem appropriate. In Jesus, Chaplain K. Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 2:51 PM, Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: Professors Lund and Essenberg seek the larger question, which I believe seems to involve whether a government can pray, at all. We all agree individuals can pray, and the First Amendment protects individual speech by private citizens. But can governments pray? Ostensibly, one particular form of government can pray; a theocracy. I suppose a monarchy such as the United Kingdom can pray as well, if the monarch is also the head of the state church. However, we are a representative democracy, and if *our* government prays, the prayer will of necessity be sectarian, and therefore exclusionary of other sects, and by default will be endorsing one religion over another and thus we have ipso facto a state religion. All well and fine it it's *your* religion, but not so fine if its not *your* religion. Perhaps, Mr. Klingenschmitt, your question should be should governments pray?. To which I would answer a resounding, emphatic, Not just no, but HELL NO! Jean Dudley ___ 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.
Baker City restores prayer in Jesus name
Professor Lund wrote: Perhaps candidates in local elections would start to run on prayer-related questions. (It's already happening!) Professor Volokh wrote: A few people care fairly deeply; most don't. What's more, the battles happen in relatively few places. Actually, so many people care about this, it inspires standing-room church revivals in city council meetings, (as the article below proves). Actually, these conflicts are happening everywhere, (including the Military-victory for Jesus prayers, Indiana-victory, Ohio-victory, Pennsylvania-victory, North Carolina-pending, New York-pending, Florida-victory, Virginia-loss, Oklahoma-victory, and now Oregon-victory.) Actually, we're already running successful RECALL CAMPAIGNS TO REMOVE COUNCIL-MEMBERS who oppose prayer in Jesus' name (like Councilman Dielman in the article below, who was recalled at least in part because of his position on prayer.) Note Baker City just voted 5-0 to remove the term non-sectarian from their prayer policy this week, after a the controversy caused a spontaneous church revival in their 22 July meeting. Another victory for prayer in Jesus' name. Article below In Jesus name, Chaplain K. --- http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D923Q0E81.html E. Oregon council retains prayers before meetings 07/23/2008 Associated Press An attempt to remove the prayer that opens many Baker City Council meetings didn't have a prayer. Councilors were deluged Tuesday night by speakers opposed to the move and were against sending the matter to the voters. In the end, councilors voted unanimously to remove a reference about whether prayers should be sectarian from the nonbinding council invocation guidelines. Roger Scovil, pastor of the Baker City Christian Church, said that prayer is important in every aspect of human activity including government. He noted that the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate both open their sessions with prayers. A Muslim will pray in the name of Allah, a Buddhist according to the teachings of Buddha, Scovil said. Don Williams told the council that sectarian prayers show a broad tolerance of what this country is about. You have been very tolerant of all prayers, and now you're being asked to be intolerant, he said. If council prayers are dropped, churches might stop entering floats in parades and offering Easter sunrise services in public parks, he said. Former council member Gary Dielman, who raised the issue when he criticized a prayer that opened the July 8 meeting and ended with In Jesus' name, amen, was not present Tuesday. Council member Terry Schumacher said he hoped Dielman would take the hint and quit coming back and doing this. Voters recalled Dielman in 2001, at least in part because of his position on prayer. Dielman first questioned religious references during official city activities when he was sworn in 1999. When reciting the oath of office, he did not say so help me God. Councilwoman Beverly Calder said dissent is an American right that may represent other unspoken voices. Councilman Andrew Bryan was among the few who supported asking voters to decide the prayer issue and reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance at City Council meetings. If we want an invocation and the pledge, we want to set it on the hardest rock we have, Bryan said. If people really want the invocation and pledge, the best way to ensure that is to put it in the charter. You can put it in the charter or paint it on a wall, countered Councilman Dennis Dorrah. That still won't change Mr. Dielman or someone else coming in here and raising heck about it. At least the issue drew a crowd to the Tuesday night meeting, Calder noted. ___ 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.
RE: Political divisions along religious lines
If Professor Lund said, someone in the government (whether the courts or otherwise) will have to decide what gets said and who gets to say it, then if logically the more powerful half of government gets to dictate and limit the content of religious speech by the lesser half of the government. If that's true, why doesn't the Democrat majority simply outlaw speeches by the Republican minority in Congress? By dictating the acceptable content of religious speech by the Christian minority, the non-sectarian majority causes great jealousy, and the urge to mobilize Christians to vote them out. Like we just did in Baker City, Oregon, here, and below: http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy13/BakerCityPrayerVictory23Jul08.pdf In Jesus, Chaplain K. Council decides prayers will continue Published: July 23, 2008 By MIKE FERGUSON Baker City Herald The prospect of taking away the prayer that opens many Baker City Council meetings, it turns out, never had a prayer. Speaker after speaker urged city councilors Tuesday to keep the prayer as part of city council meetings and not to refer the matter to voters. In the end, councilors voted unanimously to remove the word non-sectarian from the council's five Invocation Guidelines and determined by consensus not to send the issue to the November ballot. Roger Scovil, pastor of the Baker City Christian Church, said that prayer is important in every aspect of human activity and that certainly includes the human activity of government. Prayer is the sacred opportunity to call upon the creator of all things, the God of the Holy Bible, Scovil said. God establishes all governments, and honors and blesses the governments that look to him for protection. Noting that the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate both open their sessions with prayers, Scovil paraphrased Benjamin Franklin when, he said, a similar debate raged during the founding of the republic: Do we imagine we no longer need God's assistance? You invite people to pray according to their conscience, in the way we are instructed, he said. A Muslim will pray in the name of Allah, a Buddhist according to the teachings of Buddha. I won't feel excluded if you invite people of other beliefs to pray at this meeting. In the name of freedom, Scovil said just before a loud ovation, allow people to pray according to the teachings of their faith and their conscience. Don Williams said he worried that instructing people how to pray would make God generic, a meaningless and uninvited guest to this forum. Even allowing sectarian prayers, he said, shows a broad tolerance of what this country is about. You have been very tolerant of all prayers, and now you're being asked to be intolerant, Williams said. He warned that if councilors give up the practice of opening meetings with prayer, churches would stop entering floats in parades and offering Easter sunrise services in public parks. Bill Harvey, who lives in Haines but owns a Baker City construction business, called it a joy to pray for wisdom, guidance, strength and help. I am human, and I can't make all the decisions on my own, he said. I am sure tonight that many are praying for our city. Gary Dielman, who sparked Tuesday's discussion when he criticized a prayer offered by Bob Vanderbilt to open the July 8 City Council meeting Vanderbilt closed his prayer with the words In Jesus' name, amen, did not attend Tuesday's meeting. Dielman declined to comment until he'd heard a tape of Tuesday's meeting. Councilor Terry Schumacher said he hoped Dielman would take the hint from the outpouring of public support for prayer at council meetings and quit coming back and doing this. But Councilor Beverly Calder said that dissent is an American right and quite often represents other unspoken voices. Councilor Andrew Bryan was one of the few who saw the logic of putting a charter change on the ballot to let voters decide whether to include prayer and the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance on City Council meeting agendas. If we want an invocation and the Pledge, we want to set it on the hardest rock we have, he said. If people really want the invocation and Pledge, the best way to assure that is to put it in the charter. You can put it in the charter or paint it on a wall, countered Councilor Dennis Dorrah. That still won't change Mr. Dielman or someone else coming in here and raising heck about it. At least the issue drew a crowd to Tuesday night's meeting, Calder noted. You came because this matter is important to you, she told the full house. It's nice to have full council chambers. I wish we could have something this meaty at every meeting. ___ To post, send message to
Teen Challenge Awarded $1M in Lawsuit
Great win for ACLJ and equal protection! The size of the jury award also sends a message that there's a hefty price to pay for those who discriminate against religious organizations. -- Jay Sekulow This jury understood that it is simply unacceptable for a city to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution and its verdict underscores the fact that cities that do participate in this type of religious discrimination must be held accountable -- Larry Crain, ACLJ In Jesus name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt -- Teen Challenge Awarded $1M in Lawsuit http://www.thecronline.com/news_article.php?nid=4193ndate=16/09/2008 A faith-based drug rehabilitation organization was awarded nearly $1 million after a jury found that their rights had been violated over a land dispute with a city government. A federal court in Nashville awarded Teen Challenge $967,995 after the jury found that the city government and Davidson County had violated three major sections of the law in denying permits to the organization. The city was found in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Fair Housing Act, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. The original complaint claimed that the faith-based organization was unfairly denied land use permits for a planned 13-acre residential treatment facility for young people suffering from addiction. When finally given approval to use the land, government officials then revoked its approval of Teen Challenge's request for zoning. As a result, the ministry had to auction off the property since it could no longer use the land for its intended purposes. This is an incredible victory for Teen Challenge and for the rights of religious organizations, said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which represented Teen Challenge in the case. This jury verdict sends a powerful message that religious discrimination by government officials simply won't be tolerated. The size of the jury award also sends a message that there's a hefty price to pay for those who discriminate against religious organizations. We're delighted with the outcome of this case and are pleased that the mission and work of Teen Challenge can now move forward, Sekulow added. ACLJ Senior Counsel Larry Crain, who litigated the case on behalf of Teen Challenge, said the jury agreed with the ACLJ on all counts. This jury understood that it is simply unacceptable for a city to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution and its verdict underscores the fact that cities that do participate in this type of religious discrimination must be held accountable, Crain said. This verdict enables Teen Challenge to find a new location and continue its excellent commitment to helping young people struggling with alcohol and drug addiction. Teen Challenge Nashville Executive Director Norma Calhoun gave God the glory, for Wednesday's ruling. It's a new day for us, Calhoun told The Nashville City Paper. She added that Teen Challenge would look to buy another piece of property for a new facility. Although Nashville has to pay damages of nearly $1 million, the city still has two $50,000 claims from former Teen Challenge members pending trial. The U.S. Department of Justice also took notice of Teen Challenge's case and earlier this year initiated an investigation into the city government's land use policies. That investigation is still pending. ___ 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.
WND: Wow! It's still OK to pray in Jesus' name
Enjoy (or forgive) my personal celebration for the 11th Circuit Court ruling in Pelphrey v. Cobb County, restoring sanity to the legislative prayer process. Can't we all just take turns? I Pray In Jesus Name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt - This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79452 Thursday, October 30, 2008 - LAW OF THE LAND WorldNetDaily Exclusive Wow! It's still OK to pray in Jesus' name Court ruling says judges shouldn't 'parse the content of a particular prayer' - Posted: October 30, 2008 12:00 am Eastern By Bob Unruh - WorldNetDaily The judges on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have used a case from Cobb County, Ga., to proclaim that praying in Jesus' name is acceptable at county board meetings when other constitutional provisions are followed. The ruling this week sets up a conflict with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded in an opinion written by ex-Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that city officials properly excluded from a rotation of leaders for opening prayers at a municipal meeting a pastor who prayed in Jesus' name. Finally an appeals court with some common sense has ruled what I've been saying all along. The government cannot parse the content of anybody's prayer, nor forbid prayers offered 'in Jesus' name' in legislative bodies, or by government chaplains, said Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt. He was discharged from the U.S. Navy in a dispute with his commander over praying in uniform in Jesus' name, although he later won a victory in Congress that now allows other chaplains to pray as their conscience dictates. His personal case seeking reinstatement remains pending. This victory for Jesus prayers deals a serious blow to the ACLU's national campaign to silence all mention of Jesus' name from utterance in the public square. It proves 'Jesus' is not an illegal word, and this court decision proves it's fully constitutional to pray 'in Jesus name' at public events, especially if you're a government-paid chaplain, as long as we all take turns, he said. If the anti-Christian lawyers for the ACLU dare to appeal this good ruling to the Supreme Court, this case would stand opposite the bad ruling in Turner v. Fredericksburg [from the 4th Circuit]. In the new 11th Circuit ruling, the judges took on the objections brought by some taxpayers in Cobb County that their county commission and planning commission opened meetings with prayers assigned among local religious leaders on a rotating basis. When legislative prayers do not 'have the effect of affiliating the government with any one specific faith or belief, it is not for [the court] to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer, the court ruling said. We would not know where to begin to demarcate the boundary between sectarian and nonsectarian expressions and the taxpayers [who brought the case] have been opaque in explaining that standard, the court said. Even the individual taxpayers cannot agree on which expressions are 'sectarian.' The opinion said representatives of Christianity, Islam, Unitarian Universalism and Judaism have been represented. The prayers have included references to 'Jesus,' 'Allah,' 'God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,' 'Mohammed,' and 'Heavenly Father,' the court said. Those who objected, the court said, argue that the Estabslihment Clause permits only nonsectarian prayers but we disagree. The ruling said precedent makes it clear that the content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. Whether invocations of 'Lord of Lords' or 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Mohammed' are 'sectarian' is best left to theologians, not courts of law, the court said. Rev. Hashmel Turner Attorneys with The Rutherford Institute have asked the high court to overturn the opinion issued by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which came in the case of Hashmel Turner, a Christian who was told he alone of all council members in Fredericksburg, Va., would not be allowed to use the name of his God during the routine meeting prayers. The appeals court had concluded that such prayers actually were government speech and, therefore, not protected by the First Amendment. But Rutherford lawyers say the city's attempt to dictate the content of prayers violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as well as Turner's free speech and free exercise rights. That's trouble, the institute said. In fact, the decision has already triggered a discriminatory backlash against state-trooper
RE: Sending Good News Club Fliers Home With Students
Here's a related victory for evangelicals and good news clubs in public schools, by Liberty Counsel and Mat Staver In Jesus name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt --- LibertyCounsel December 3, 2008 After-School Christian Club Wins Battle Against School Board Discrimination www.LC.org We have Good News to report from California. A federal court judge has ruled that Child Evangelism Fellowship of San Diego is the prevailing party in a case against the San Diego City School District. Liberty Counsel sued the District for charging CEF to hold after-school Good News Clubs, while allowing free use of facilities for Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4-H Clubs, and other youth groups. The District must now refund the fees it charged CEF, including interest. The judge also ruled that Liberty Counsel is entitled to receive attorney's fees from the District. Liberty Counsel has represented numerous CEF groups in similar cases all across America and we thank God that we have never lost a case. Good News Clubs are a tremendous way to reach children with a positive message. ___ 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.
Religionlaw List: Christians face trial for criticizing Islam
Christian couple in the UK facing criminal charges of religiously aggravated public order offence, because they criticized Islam in their own hotel. http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christians-face-trial-for-criticising-islam/ also here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6211604/Christian-couple-face-losing-hotel-after-criminal-charges-for-offending-Muslim-woman.html Any chance whatsoever they can be convicted of a religious speech crime on their own property? Assuming the basic facts as presented, why would this case even be prosecuted? The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder. I've known sidewalk preachers here in America who have been arrested for holding signs, or shouting their message too loudly but the cases are usually not prosecuted successfully, and the police are reprimanded for harassment. In Jesus, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt___ 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.
Pro-lifer guilty in free speech, free press case
Curious what our expert legal list members might say.this case is the first attempt at enforcing a new residential peace law that prohibits raising your voice on a public sidewalk outside the home of an abortion doctorthe doctor had never met the protester until today in court, so the stalking definition is dubiousbut the wanted posters should be protected as freedom of the press. Or are they? The actual text on the posters said Wanted by Jesus to stop killing babies. No threats of physical violence were ever reported. In Jesus, Chaplain Klingenschmitt --- http://www.wsoctv.com/news/25678662/detail.html CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A local pastor was found guilty Monday of stalking a doctor who performs abortions. He was sentenced to 24 months probation and plans to appeal. Reverend Flip Benham posted wild west-style Wanted posters which gave the doctor's name and home address. Benham said this was a free speech issue, that he has a constitutional right to speak his mind. He said, [The doctor] kills babies. He does it for a living. He has no respect for life of children in the safety and neighborhoods of their mothers' wombs. But others saw the posters as threats to women's rights and the doctor himself. Cindy Thompson, with the Charlotte chapter of the National Organization for Women said, It's none of his business. He needs to leave women alone and let us make up our minds. Some worried anti-abortion activists might kill the doctor, something that has happened elsewhere and was mentioned multiple times in court Monday. Prosecutors said it was like putting a target on the doctor's back. The doctor said he felt the poster was a call for my murder. He said he was always looking over his shoulder, that he'd get down on his hands and knees to make sure there were no bombs under his car, that he was worried someone would be on the roof waiting to shoot him, and that he even watched TV in rooms with fewer windows. Benham replied, Nobody has gone and killed because [he or she] saw a poster. That is most absurd and logical fallacy that there possibly could be. ___ 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.
