Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
Paul Finkelman wrote: Sounds very much like someone tooting his own horn? Is excessive pride also a sin? Interestingly enough, it sounded like somebody who was accused of selfishness attempting to place his actions in context in order to defend the impugning of his character. One can only wonder how G-d will respond to someone who brags about his work to make outcasts of gay members of the human family. Perhaps the Chaplain should try marching a mile or two in the boot of a gay sailor or soldier. Again, where was the bragging? If somebody calls the chaplain selfish, isn't he allowed to say, No, I don't believe I was being selfish. Here's why. Also, I didn't see a thing about trying to make anybody outcasts. Are you suggesting that a person who believes that Scripture teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for monogamous heterosexual marriage should simply keep their views to themselves? Or is freedom of religion reserved for those who believe that God simply says, Be nice people and otherwise do whatever you want? I am no expert on the chaplain's faith, but have spent a great deal of my life studying religion and this is the first time I have ever heard a Christian assert that praying fomr the Book of Psalms compromised a Christian's faith. Praying from the Book of Psalms is not, in and of itself, compromising a person's faith. Being required to pray ONLY from the Book of Psalms to the exclusion of every other prayer in the Bible, however, is another matter. It sounds to me very much like the Navy has, in essence, said that a person can only be a chaplain if they act as if they don't actually believe anything. That doesn't sound like what 200+ years worth of American fighting men and women were willing to die to defend. Brad Pardee ___ 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
Brad Pardee writes: It sounds to me very much like the Navy has, in essence, said that a person can only be a chaplain if they act as if they don't actually believe anything. That doesn't sound like what 200+ years worth of American fighting men and women were willing to die to defend. There is a difference between belief and forcing soldiers and sailors to listen to prayers that are offensive to them. The Chaplain was free to believe anything he wants; and to pray privately with whatever word or language he choses; he was not free to impose his beliefs on others. That is also what freedom is about. ___ 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 President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [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: 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.
Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
I hardly agree that he lost on the merits of the argument. I have yet to read any reasonable interpretation of law or history thatsupports yourposition. - Original Message - From: Gordon James Klingenschmitt To: Paul Finkelman ; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:13 AM Subject: 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.pdf 85% 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.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. ___ 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: Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
On 10/2/06, Brad Pardee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds to me very much like the Navy has, in essence, said that a person can only be a chaplain if they act as if they don't actually believe anything. That doesn't sound like what 200+ years worth of American fighting men and women were willing to die to defend. Brad Pardee Let's back up this context a bit. 1. Chaplains can privately pray to whomever they want and howsoever they want, short of interfering with others legitimate activities. 2. Chaplains can hold private services for adherents and pray howsoever they want, including in the name of Jesus or Allah or whomever or whatever. 3. Chaplains can hold services open to anyone and pray howsoever they want,including in the name of Jesus or Allah or whomever or whatever so long as these services may be fairly characterized as voluntary. 4. When Chaplains are doing official business in official settings or in mandatory assemblies, then restrictions are placed on them. 5. When Chaplains are in situations where being in uniform would affect the perception that they are acting in an official capacity, they need to act in accordance with some restrictions that do not apply if they are doing the exact same conduct, but not in uniform. Have I got this about right? If so, it strikes me that religious freedom is doing quite well by chaplains in the military -- with broader free exercise being granted than would be constitutionally required. Mr. Klingenschmitt's interpretation of Congress's actions seem erroneous to me and his actions do seem to be more about grandstanding than religious freedom, but he is certainly entitled to his take on what religious freedom law should be, and within bounds, as to what it is. And I take him at his word that he is pursuing his agenda motivated by a genuine (mis)understanding of what the law requires and a genuine belief (mistaken by my lights) as to what it should require. -- Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law ___ 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: Locke v. Davey Analysis
To the extent that the decision in Locke is a product of general themes in Rehnquists constitutional jurisprudence, I think the theme of states rightsmentioned earlier by Rick Tepkershould not be overlooked. Rehnquist wrote a series of important Establishment Clause opinions upholding indirect funding programs that included religious beneficiaries (Mueller, Zobrest, Zelman), citing the importance of neutrality and private choice. And yet he rejected the Free Exercise argument in Locke even though the program at issue there was not neutral and did not honor the private choice of those wishing to pursue religious careers. In each context, however, Rehnquist was according discretion to the states by interpreting the First Amendment narrowly. I analyze Rehnquists role in the indirect funding cases--both the Establishment Clauses cases and Locke--in a book chapter in The Rehnquist Legacy (Craig Bradley ed., Cambridge 2006). Daniel O. Conkle *** Daniel O. Conkle Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Indiana University School of Law Bloomington, Indiana 47405 (812) 855-4331 fax (812) 855-0555 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 2:29 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Locke v. Davey Analysis Locke v. Davey does not announce a requirement of anti-religious motive, as I show in a sentence-by-sentence parsing of the opinion in the Harvard Law Review in 2004. It is primarily a burden opinion: refusal to fund does not impose a significant burden, which was indeed a longstanding Rehnquist theme. There is also talk about the importance and narrowness of the state's interest in not funding clergy -- at one point he says the only interest at issue here is the interest in not funding the training of clergy -- and other talk that would seem to make the state's interests irrelevant and universalize the rule that refusal to fund is not a burden. Sherbert is distinguished as a burden opinion, not as a motive opinion. It is true that judges deciding or defending Employment Division v. Smith have characterized Sherbert as a discrimination case. But that is not at all the same as finding bad motive behind that discrimination. Locke v. Davey itself was clearly a discrimination case, and yet the Court found no bad motive. Rehnquistalso distinguishes the case striking down rules barring clergy from the legislature (Pate?), which were enacted in 1796; no one has claimed that that was a motive case. Rehnquist takes up the question of motive only in response to Scalia's dissent, and only after distinguishing cases of burdensome regulation and of regulation that intereferes with political rights. Quoting Gary McCaleb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I will weigh in but briefly--I'm spending my Saturday dealing with the Ninth Circuit's wayward First Amendment analyses on another case--but note this as background to Davey. I litigated the case at district court and on some of the appeal work before I left ACLJ. The scholarships were awarded based on satisfying three criteria: a defined level of academic success; a defined level of financial need based on family income; and intent to attend a qualifying Washington university (including private, pervasively sectarian universities). Davey could have taken exactly the same courses he would take as a theology major simply by selecting a major that would not have made the nature of his coursework evident, but to put it simply, Mr. Davey wasn't that kind of guy. It was a classic situation religion-neutral, need/performance driven scholarship system that was driven by a purpose statement of preparing Washington students for a productive future. How the state's interest in non-appropriation of state funds for theology training plays into that, I don't know. Its hyper-separation on steroids. As to Rehnquist's apparent need to discern animus to justify a free exercise claim, that seems to be far outside the four corners of the simple text of the free speech clause and leaves the government with rather broad authority to chill religious _expression_ based on little more than notional interests. Certainly, I think animus in Davey could be properly inferred from the program's purpose statement, as the state was making a value judgement that being a pastor would not be a productive role for a Washington citizen. Anyway, this is off the top of my head--gotta get back to briefing. Sour grapes here? Well...sure. I could barely recognize the case when I read the opinion.my sense is the Court picked the wrong vehicle to draw a line, and ran over both the Constitutiona and a sterling young man in the process. /S/ Gary S. McCaleb Gary S. McCaleb Senior Counsel (480) 444-0020 ext. 8046 (480)
