Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
I do not understan why Mr. Klingenschmitt thnks "all chaplains are evangelists." Many Rabbis for example, are not trying to convince people of their point of view, they simply lead prayers; this is true for other faiths as well. Furthermore, in the military (so my chaplain friends tell me); chaplains often lead prayers, do last rites, and consel soldiers who are not of their faith. Since some spiritual leaders, such as Rabbis, emphatically DO NOT seek converts, they are surely not evangalizing when they provide counseling for peope other other faiths. I wonder how Mr. Kingenschmitt thinks a Protestant minister is an "evangelist" if he gives last rites to a dying Catholic soldier? Paul Finkelman Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
In a message dated 10/8/2005 11:45:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In any event,the chaplain can clearly be told that there are limits to his/her evangelism with regard to those who are not voluntary attenders of what might be called "regular" services, just as there are certainly limits to my evangelizing, either politically or religiously, in my classroom. Now this is a statement of the principle with which I can live. I suspect that there are, that there must be, limits to the chaplain's evangelistic activities. I am altogether unsure of what they are, or what, under the Constitution, they must be. I suspect that the hypotheticals that I offered earlier illustrate just some of the many instances in which a chaplain's religious liberty is closer to its apex than to its nadir. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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
I don't actually think I was asking these as questions; rather, I am suggesting that you don't, or certainly should not, be evangelizing when you administer to non-Episcopalians. that is my point. I htink there is a difference between trying tgo convert you to believe something -- which is what evangelizing is -- and trying to get someone to modify their behavior. I do not care if someone believes in conversion, but I do object to using tax money to support his attempts to convert people as a chaplain, since that is not his job or role. It is the distinction between belief and action. When you enter the military you give up some freedom of action; that ought to include an admonition against using your position to try to convert other people. This is true whether it is a religous conversion or a political one. On your own time, feel free to stand on the corner and preach to anyone who will listed; but in uniform you should not be doing so. This is not about converting you to a different *Faith* -- rather it is the demand that your behavior is different. Obviously I have no information to comment on the specifics of your preaching so my points are general. Paul Finkelman Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: 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
RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
. 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. As I've noted earlier, I find myself genuinely conflicted. Generally speaking, I'm not sympathetic to "military discipline" arguments in First Amendment cases, but I can surely understand why the Armed Forces would try to limit the freedom of soldiers, e.g., to engage in speech that would likely be disruptive of "good order and morale" during wartime situations. Similarly, I can understand why the military would be wary of speech that emphasizes the divisions within the ranks between "saved" and "unsaved" (and therefore "damned") soldiers, especially if one of the lessons being taught at voluntary gatherings is the necessity to try to persuade those in the latter category to change before they are killed and thus suffer eternal damnation. From the evangelical perspective, nothing, obviously could be more important. Yet, just as I cannot turn my constitutional law class into a discussion of whether or not my students will suffer the eternal torments of hell (or simply absence from God), I think that there are reasonable limits that can be placed on the speech of military chaplains. But I am open to arguments on the other side, since I really do find it a difficult issue. sandy ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Sandy: 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 Sanford Levinson wrote: . 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. As I've noted earlier, I find myself genuinely conflicted. Generally speaking, I'm not sympathetic to "military discipline" arguments in First Amendment cases, but I can surely understand why the Armed Forces would try to limit the freedom of soldiers, e.g., to engage in speech that would likely be disruptive of "good order and morale" during wartime situations. Similarly, I can understand why the military would be wary of speech that emphasizes the divisions within the ranks between "saved" and "unsaved" (and therefore "damned") soldiers, especially if one of the lessons being taught at voluntary gatherings is the necessity to try to persuade those in the latter category to change before they are killed and thus suffer eternal damnation. From the evangelical perspective, nothing, obviously could be more important. Yet, just as I cannot turn my constitutional law class into a discussion of whether or not my students will suffer the eternal torments of hell (or simply absence from God), I think that there are reasonable limits that can be placed on the speech of military chaplains. But I am open to arguments on the other side, since I really do find it a difficult issue. sandy ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
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 intolerance Sandy: 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 FinkelmanSanford Levinson wrote: . 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. As I've noted earlier, I find myself genuinely conflicted. Generally speaking, I'm not sympathetic to "military discipline" arguments in First Amendment cases, but I can surely understand why the Armed Forces would try to limit the freedom of soldiers, e.g., to engage in speech that would likely be disruptive of "good order and morale" during wartime situations. Similarly, I can understand why the military would be wary of speech that emphasizes the divisions within the ranks between "saved" and "unsaved" (and therefore "damned") soldiers, especially if one of the lessons being taught at voluntary gatherings is the necessity to try to persuade those in the latter category to change before they are killed and thus suffer eternal damnation. From the evangelical perspective, nothing, obviously could be more important. Yet, just as I cannot turn my constitutional law class into a discussion of whether or not my students will suffer the eternal torments of hell (or simply absence from God), I think that there are reasonable limits that can be placed on the speech of military chaplains. But I am open to arguments on the other side, since I really do find it a difficult issue. sandy ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
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 would be discouraged from attending future memorial services for deceased comrades or shipmates, should anything be done by military authorities. This last case involves a conflict between the religious liberty of the Chaplain to conduct the service according to the dictates of his faith and the interest of military personnel of other faiths who want to be able to show their respect for, and to memorialize, a fallen comrade by attending a memorial service in his honor. I suppose one way to resolve that conflict would be to hold two memorial services; one a more sectarian service for members of the decedents faith and the other a more ecumenical service for military personnel of diverse faiths. Im not sure how often dual services would be necessary. I have certainly attended funeral services for Christian colleagues and have never heard anything said that made me feel unwelcome or disparaged my faith. But I recognize that this may not be true for the services of all the diverse Christian sects in our society. Would holding dual services be an acceptable solution to this last situation? Alan Brownstein UC Davis 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 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
I wonder if the judge is correct. Is the building set aside so "YOU" the Chaplain -- can freely practice your faith, or so that you can provide religious serives for soldiers? There might be a difference. I assume if a Chaplain is asked to provide an interdenominational or non-denominational service on a small base, where there is only one chaplain, the chaplain cannot refuse, saying "it is against my religion" or cannot then go in and give a sectarian sermon, denouncing those who are not followers of his faith, and then claim that the judge said that is ok. Paul Finkelman Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: Thanks to you both, for being kind to me, after I vented... The government owns the buildings in which we preach. But a federal judge ruled that makes no difference, since the purpose of the building is to set aside a place where we can freely practice our faith, even if we preach things that contradict government policy, for example. The defining case law is Rigdon vs. Perry, if you want to research, start here... http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/38.html GJK Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 Finkelman Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 6:45 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance Sandy: 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 Sanford Levinson wrote: . 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. As I've noted earlier, I find myself genuinely conflicted. Generally speaking, I'm not sympathetic to "military discipline" arguments in First Amendment cases, but I can surely understand why the Armed Forces would try to limit the freedom of soldiers, e.g., to engage in speech that would likely be disruptive of "good order and morale" during wartime situations. Similarly, I can understand why the military would be wary of speech that emphasizes the divisions within the ranks between "saved" and "unsaved" (and therefore "damned") soldiers, especially if one of the lessons being taught at voluntary gatherings is the necessity to try to persuade those in the latter category to change before they are killed and thus suffer eternal damnation. From the evangelical perspective, nothing, obviously could be more important. Yet, just as I cannot turn my constitutional law class into a dis cussion of whether or not my students will suffer the eternal torments of hell (or simply absence from God), I think that there are reasonable limits that can be placed on the speech of military chaplains. But I am open to arguments on the other side, since I really do find it a difficult issue. sandy ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
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 Finkelman Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 6:45 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance Sandy: 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 Sanford Levinson wrote: . Now aslaw professors,as teachers of our future leaders,will you actuallyteach your students thatgovernment should agree with them,and sidewith Mr. Weinstein and Yale Divinity, and enter the Protestant Chapel tosilence the chaplain's speechwith military policemen? Sandy? Paul? Chip? Alan? I cannot think you really believe whatyou're saying. Please keep the government out of my chapel.Please. AsI've noted earlier, I find myself genuinely conflicted. Generallyspeaking, I'm not sympathetic to "military discipline" arguments in FirstAmendment cases, but I can surely understand why the Armed Forces would try tolimit the freedom of soldiers, e.g., to engage in speech that would likely bedisruptive of "good order and morale" during wartime situations.Similarly, I can understand why the military would be wary of speech thatemphasizes the divisions within the ranks between "saved" and "unsaved" (andtherefore "damned") soldiers, especially if one of the lessons being taught atvoluntary gatherings is the necessity to try to persuade those in the lattercategory to change before they are killed and thus suffer eternaldamnation. From the evangelical perspective, nothing, obviously could bemore important. Yet, just as I cannot turn my constitutional law classinto a discussion of whether or not my students will suffer the eternaltorments of hell (or simply absence from God), I think that there arereasonable limits that can be placed on the speech of militarychaplains. But I am open to arguments on the other side, since I reallydo find it a difficult issue. sandy ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
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.
