Mark asks a good question.
I don't know how the military hires chaplins, but I expect it is by religion-neutral credentials ("ordained" status, theology degree, etc). So in one sense this is a religious test. But it is not a test that turns on the military's disapproval of a particular religious
Of course, this isn't a context in which religious tests can be eliminated
altogether. (Query: Why isn't it therefore a violation of article VI?) But
the military clergy hiring must be nondenominational, i.e., made without
sectarian discrimination. (But cf. the recent Simpson Wiccan
The leading (and quite thorough) opinion on the military chaplaincy
and the Establishment Clause is Katcoff v. Marsh, 755 F. 2d 223
(2nd Cir. 1985). The justification for chaplains is to minister to
religious needs of members of the Armed Forces. Frequently, the
circumstances of soldiers
I don't think any chaplin can minister to all soldiers. For example, many believing Christians could not be ministered to by a chaplin who did not believe that Christ is what He said he was, the only way to the Father. Any attempt to exclude chaplins who preach salvation through Christ is a form
I have a question for Marty. If it violates the EC for a chaplin to preach--in his official capacity--the doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ, thenwhy aren'tall official sermons and prayers violations of the EC? Surely, the EC does not allow the official praying of some prayers and the
A larger problem is that while people like us fret about the chaplains'
free-speech rights, at least some evangelical chaplains care little about the
letter or spirit of the rules within which their position is intended to
operate. Some, it is becoming clear, have their own agenda, and, when
It seems to me that, as with much in the military (not
everything, perhaps, but much), the First Amendment neither mandates nor
forbids any particular military policy with regard to chaplains' speech.
The Establishment Clause surely can't bar chaplains from endorsing some
theological views
I don't think this is just a question of chaplains using public
funds. Even if all chaplains were funded by private entities, the
military would still have to play an important role in selecting which
ones may accompany the troops, providing them with housing and
protection, and so on.
I'm curious what Rick (and others) would think of a chaplain OR a
military officer who said, just before a patrol went off to take up a
position, say, along the Baghdad airport highway, Any of you could be
killed today, and I hope that you have accepted Jesus Christ as your
Lord and Savior,
I am currently out of the office, returning August 1. I will be unable to
access email regularly while I am away.
If you need assistance during this time, please contact Sondra Beaulieu at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or (212) 891-6741.
--Danielle
___
To
Title: Message
I have no animus toward evangelicals, in the
sense of hostility to them because of their beliefs, just as I have no animus
towards religiously devout vegetarians. But I wouldn't hire a religiously
devout vegetarian (or any vegetarian, for that matter) for a chef at a
I generally support the Larson v. Valente prohibition on
discrimination based on religion (though I think Justice Scalia is quite
right that if government may speak religiously, it must be free to
discriminate based on denomination in selecting the speech).
Yet surely that can't
Rick: It has been always my understanding that a military chaplin
serves the military and all military personnel; in WWI and WWII there
were cases of Jewish and Protestant chaplins giving last rites to
Catholic soldiers; and Catholic priests helping Jews have a sedar or
helping them be
Title: Message
It is not that difficult, in my view. There
is a formalist objection to the decision. I dont buy it, but I
recognize that it exists, and this objection is not necessarily rooted in
religious purpose or intent. However, why would one want to make a formalist,
jurisprudential
Title: Message
The answer has to be that the government
can fire chaplains who suggest that. It is not good for morale. Given
the basis or justification for having chaplains in the first place cuts against
any broad and sweeping first amendment free speech claim on the part of the
Ill bite. The chaplain can be
disciplined. Such preaching is clearly bad for military morale, given the
current rules regarding homosexuality and the military.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:13
AM
To: Law
Rick asks:
By the way, am I too sensitive or do I perceive a certain animus toward
evangelicals in this discussion?
Not
surprisingly, perhaps, my initial posting was generated by an evangelical
memorial sermon, presumably an "official" activity on the Navy ship where it
occurred,that
For what it's worth in this discussion, I have now found several
stories on-line about Klingenschmitt that report, among other things,
that he was a strenuous advocate for a Jewish sailor for whom the
Navy had not supplied sufficient kosher food aboard ship.
See, e.g.,
Martin Marty had a short piece on the issue of military chaplains in his
Sightings from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago
Divinity School this week. If you are interested, I have pasted it
below:
Sightings 7/11/05
The Decline of Military Chaplaincy
-- Martin E. Marty
Title: Message
Justice Scalia's dissent in McCreary, and Chief
Justice Rehnquist's majority in Van Orden, relies in large part on many
religious statements from American history. These statements are important
evidence in support of their proposition that such religious statements ought to
Let me understand. If government action would not have been taken but for
the religious purpose of those who take the action, then, according to
Marty, the action violates the Establishment Clause under the first prong of
the Lemon test. Such a but for test as a general matter in Establishment
Sorry for the additional post, but perhaps I misread Marty's proposal. He
talks not of a religious purpose but rather of a purpose to advance
religion. I suppose one can say that enactment of social welfare legislation
and abolition of slavery was not done for the purpose of advancing religion,
Yes, that's right, Mark. I do not mean to be referring to "religious motivation," but instead to be referring to a "but for" objective of promoting [expressly] [specifically] [uniquely] [your adjective here] religious actvities/beliefs/doctrines. Of course this is a very fluid concept -- but the
Rick writes:
If I were on a road heading for
a cliff, I would want to be told that the road I was on was bad and that another
road was good. The same is true of the spiritual roads I travel. If Iwere
heading for Hell, I would not want a chaplain to comfort me and tell me that
everything
So let return to the hypo, though refine it in light of Marty's
reading of McCreary: Say several city council members put together a
display featuring the documents that Justice Scalia points to in his
opinion, and also the Ten Commandments that was the subject of his
opinion, and that
I haven't commented on this thread, mostly because I thought the
answer was pretty straight-forward from Justice Souter's
invocation of common sense as a legal technique in addressing
this kind of problem.
I could get fancier about this (in the initial version, what does
common sense tell you
If the protest involves passing a resolution, which has nominal costs and minimal staying power and coercing effect, let them do it.
If the protest involves getting an engraved stone monument that will last for time and all eternity as a poke in the eye to the Court and any citizen who agrees
I suppose that Eugene's reply is a demonstration of why invoking
common sense is better than trying to get fancy about it. (But, I'm
puzzled at how putting up a picture is a cogent argument but
putting up a banner is not; I'll give you vivid in both cases, but --
at least where I come from --
Assume that Cohen v. California had gone the other way, with Justice
Harlan in dissent. For Eugene and others who defend the city in this
thread: Could I constitutionally stand in front of the courthouse with
a copy of the opinion plus a) a jacket saying Fuck the Draft or 2) a
highly enlarged
I think Sandy's point is an excellent argument in favor of
protecting profanity. If indeed one couldn't protest the Court's
contrary decision without resorting to euphemism -- if one couldn't say
The Court got it wrong in saying that words like 'fuck' are
unprotected -- that would be a
Sandy helps illustrate my point. There are some soldiers, like Sandy, who do not wish chaplains to try to save them. They believe they are just fine the way they are thanks.But there are other soldiers, perhaps likeI once was,who are searching forGod and for salvation and want chaplains to show
31 matches
Mail list logo
