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);
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
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,
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
. 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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
