Re: Garrett Epps on the death of Al Smith
Thanks for posting this link. Powerful story we should all have noticed before. By the way, I think the story gets it right when it says the drafters of RFRA excluded one key religious group—the Native American Church. The law was supposed to apply equally, but I don't remember hearing or reading that the group meeting on Maryland Ave (and in other places) included any participants from the NAC. Bill W. A. Wildhack III PCUSA minister, Florida lawyer, Navy Chaplain On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu wrote: Not the presidential candidate, but the lead plaintiff in Employment Division v. Smith. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/elegy-for-an-american-hero-al-smith-smith-employment-division-supreme-court/383582/ One detail in Garrett's story is not quite right. Congress did not exclude peyote claims from RFRA. Neither did it explicitly include them. The whole theory of RFRA was to enact a single standard that would apply equally to all claims. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ___ 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, 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: Impact of same-sex marriage rulings on strict scrutiny in religious exemption cases
Some possibly disjointed thoughts from my minister/chaplain/lawyer brain . . . Several in this discussion have used the phrase withdraw the power to solemnize civil marriages from churches or similar language. I think a more accurate-even if cumbersome-phrase might be the power to perform legally binding civil marriages in the context of a religious ceremony or something along those lines. Many churches have for generations had liturgies for solemnizing civil marriages or services for those previously married in a civil ceremony. I've officiated at several religious wedding ceremonies over the years for those who were first married by a state official (notary public, justice of the peace, etc.) for one reason or another but who also wanted a Christian wedding in a church. Taking away the power to officiate at a legally binding civil marriage from clergy has absolutely no effect on any authority conferred by a religious organization on one of its leaders to perform a religious liturgy that solemnizes a civil commitment between members of that organization or anyone else who seeks recognition of their commitment to each other from that religious organization. The fact that states have chosen to recognize such ceremonies as legally binding when those relationships comport with state law is a different matter. Similarly, while the state may apparently be able to compel equal access to a public accommodation-even if the owners declared it a religious facility despite its usage (was it an amphitheater in NJ? it's late here tonight!)-for ceremonies to which the owners object on religious grounds, or a pharmacist to dispense medication to which the pharmacist objects on religious grounds, the state cannot compel a religious organization to conduct one of its religious ceremonies/rites for someone who does not meet that organization's standards. In other words, I don't share the fear that the state will be compelling clergy to perform **religious** wedding ceremonies for partnerships not recognized as marriages by those churches or clergy-even *if* the state continues to permit clergy to perform legally binding civil marriages in the context of a religious ceremony. On a personal note, when I was the command chaplain for the U.S. Navy base at the south end of the Panama Canal I really enjoyed the freedom that came from not being permitted to perform legally binding wedding ceremonies in the Republic of Panama. Any service member who wanted to get married in Panama had to be married by the civil authorities. For me, that meant that people who came to me for a religious ceremony to solemnize their civil wedding came to me FOR A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY because they wanted one and not merely as a means to a change in their legal status (and the increased monetary allowances that came with having a family). Although I may well be in a minority on this one, I don't think I'll miss the authority/power to perform a legally binding marriage at all if it goes away some day, because I've always found the discussions and celebration with those who sought a religious ceremony-because they thought it was important to their life of faith and their life in a community of faith-to be much more meaningful and enjoyable than discussions with couples who wanted a church wedding just because that's what people do, isn't it? Bill Wildhack Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Minister of Word and Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve ___ 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: Virginia ban on state troopers mentioning Jesus Christ in public prayers
The latest suit by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation on these issues was filed this week in Kansas (I got a copy of the complaint at http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/urgent%20_issues/complain_sept08.pdf About ten pages of the complaint look like a repeat of the broader allegations catalogued in the earlier case involving Spc. Jeremy Hall. However, the specific allegations in this action as I read them on the first and last few pages are directed at sectarian (specifically Christian) prayers offered by chaplains at mandatory command events. With that shift in focus, do any of you think this argument will get more traction than some of MRFF's earlier filings? Bill Wildhack --Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida --Minister of Word and Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) --Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve **Disclaimer: Any views expressed below are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy or the Navy Chaplain Corps.** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ira (Chip) Lupu Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 12:45 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Virginia ban on state troopers mentioning Jesus Christ in public prayers Chaplains speaking at public events are not ministering to the particular religious needs of state troopers (in that private context, chaplains can pray in ways that accommodate and facilitate the beliefs of those to whom they are ministering). At public events, open to all (and sometimes mandatory) chaplains are the voices of the state, and should be limited to ceremonial, non-sectarian prayer. Bob Tuttle and I discuss this question in our paper on the military chaplaincy, 110 W. Va. L. Rev. 89, 148-159 (2007). There is lurking here a prior question of whether the government should be free to appoint chaplains in the first place for police officers, firefighters, or public employees generally (as Indiana recently did, only to back down in the face of a lawsuit). Police officers and firefighters, unlike prisoners and members of the armed forces, are not under the care and control of the government. Why is government ministering to police officers and firefighters, who are free to seek their own private, spiritual counsel? Original message Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:21:42 -0500 From: Christopher Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virginia ban on state troopers mentioning Jesus Christ in public prayers To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu A necessary travesty? More proof that religious liberty and legislative prayer are like Harry Potter and Voldemort - neither can live while the other survives? Best, Chris __ Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) Papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/26/2008 10:08 AM Thoughts? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403 471.html?hpid=sec-religion -- Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice (IIPSJ) Inc. ___ 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. Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 ___ 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, 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)
RE: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed)
Some of the rest of the story is that Sen. Chambers is apparently Nebraska's longest serving state senator, and the AP story includes this info: Chambers, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, said he filed the lawsuit to show that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody. That, he said, was recently illustrated by a federal lawsuit he said triggered his lawsuit against God. Tory Bowen, 24, sued a state judge who barred the words rape and victim, among other terms, in the trial of Pamir Safi, who Bowen says sexually assaulted her. Bowen said Lancaster District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated her free speech rights. Chambers said Bowen's lawsuit is inappropriate because the Nebraska Supreme Court has already considered the case and federal courts follow the decisions of state supreme courts on state matters. So, while the religious aspect is getting all the attention-no surprise there!-it may really not be about that at all. Sure is going to be fun to watch though! Bill Wildhack Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Minister of Word and Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:14 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed) I don't know Chambers reasons for the lawsuit. But just to temper the reaction that he must be mad, Chambers, if I remember correctly, is a wily politician with a good reputation for fighting for his community. Bobby ___ 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: Recent Threads / True Mental Health...
Ironically/coincidentally/providentially (your choice!), the quote of the day on my iGoogle home page today is this from Bertrand Russell: If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. That would seem consistent with David Masci's new piece from the Pew Forum on Religion and American Life dealing with How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science (available at http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=243). At a glance, it looks like Pew's research backs up Russell's assertions to some extent (except maybe for the comment about myths at the end of the quote), though it also suggests that even overwhelming evidence may not be enough for some folks. Oh, well. Anyway, maybe it's time to move on from parsing proselytize/evangelize/whatever and get back to Law Religion issues for Law Academics. Bill Wildhack Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Minister of Word and Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve ___ 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: CFR for conscientious objectors removed
Removal from CFR does not mean the regulations no longer exist-just that they're now found only in the DoD documents this part of CFR was based on. I'm not so sure that this action counts as something that affects religious liberty so mightily since the Conscientious Objector regs do still exist and do still apply to DoD personnel. Bill Wildhack Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Minister of Word and Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve Disclaimer: Any views expressed below are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy or the Navy Chaplain Corps. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Darrell Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 05:40 To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: CFR for conscientious objectors removed I don't practice in the area, but it seems to me this would severely limit the ability of lawyers to advise clients on CO status. Odd that something that affects religious liberty so mightily would be changed with no public comment. Do we have any counselors to Jehovah's Witnesses on the list who could explain why there's little effect, if that's the case? Ed Darrell Dallas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just an informational item. The Department of Defense on June 19 withdrew from publication in the CFR the regulations concerning conscientious objection, previously found at 32 CFR 75. The rationale, at 72 FR 33677, is as follows: This document removes part 75, 'Conscientious Objectors' presently in Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The document on which this part was based has been revised and is limited only to DoD personnel management matters, affects only DoD military personnel, and has no impact on the public. I must say that, from a research standpoint, this is rather frustrating, although that is just my own view. In any case, I thought this list might be interested in this development. Scott Idleman Marquette University Law School ___ 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, 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: Military strips Wiccan of chaplainacy
Disclaimer: Any views expressed below are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department of the Defense, any of its components, or the Navy Chaplain Corps. For those who are interested in exploring the question of latitude Prof. Jamar raised below, two of the key regulations that appear to be involved are: Department of Defense Directive 1304.19, Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments Link: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/130419.htm Department of Defense Instruction 1304.28, Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments Link: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/130428.htm I'll leave compelling interest to others! Very respectfully, Bill Wildhack Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Minister of Word and Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:54 AM To: Law Religion Law List Subject: Military strips Wiccan of chaplainacy A Pentacostal chaplain lost his ability to be a military chaplain when he converted to wiccan. Is there a compelling interest supporting this removal? Or is the military given this much latitude over chaplains merely as a matter of discretion? Article in the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021801 396.html http://www.tiny.cc/jscdn -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein ___ 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
Disclaimer: Any views expressed below are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy or the Navy Chaplain Corps. Professor Guinn has called attention to something I've been wondering about since I first saw this particularline of argument made in Chaplain Klingenschmitt's "War Against Christians" presentation (available on his website athttp://www.persuade.tv/frenzy2/WACspeech.ppt ). In the quoted passage from my paper, I reported on questions asked of the Secretary of the Navy by the Speaker of the House in 1859 regarding whether there were any requirements for chaplains to literally *read* prayers, follow any partcular liturgy, or whether "non-Episcopal chaplains had to follow the Episcopal liturgy." I did not describe, nor do I recall finding, any evidence that official Navy policy at the time actually included such requirements. As quoted below, I did report that the Secretary explained in his reply to the Speaker that "he was not aware that the instruction to 'read' had ever been construed to require a literal reading from a particular prayer book . . . ." In other words, even if there had been a policy requiring "non-Episcopal chaplains . . . to follow the Episcopal liturgy," much less a mandatory requirement that prayers be read from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, the Secretary didn't know about it. Just to make sure there would be no misunderstanding in the future,he issued orders clarifying that there was no such policy and a chaplain could "conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he may be a member." Even so, my article is cited in apparent support of the proposition that use of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer "was once seen as 'mandatory' for all chaplains." I do not, however, think what I wrote supports that conclusion, and I do not recall finding support for it in any of the materials I reviewed or cited. Of course, other historical sources may have more information on this particular point, but I don't. By the way, while the quoted passage from page 226 of my paper is reproduced accurately enough below, in context it is followedimmediately by these words beginning at the bottom of that page: While conducting worship has always been one of a military chaplain's duties, protecting the rights of others to freely exercise their faith also predates the Constitution and Bill of Rights. [FN59] The earliest chaplains, like their modern-day counterparts, served a military population representing a variety of faith groups or no faith at all. [FN60] One author asserts that the "pattern for chaplain ministry to soldiers of different religious backgrounds was set in the seventeenth century, from the time the first militia units drilled at Jamestown, Plymouth, Boston and New York." [FN61] Very respectfully, Bill Wildhack Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of FloridaMinister of Word and Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve P.S. For those who might be interested inseeingmore of my paper for the larger context of the quoted section and the content of the footnotes, the rest of the cite is: Navy Chaplains at the Crossroads: Navigating the Intersection of Free Speech, Free Exercise, Establishment, and Equal Protection,51 Naval L. Rev. 217 (2005). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. GuinnSent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:57 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name" 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 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon James KlingenschmittSent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:16 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 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):
RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
Disclaimer: Any views expressed below are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy or the Navy Chaplain Corps. Professors, If the agreement to remove the "Military Chaplains Prayer Law" from the National Defense Authorization Act resulted somehow in language being inserted that would have the effect of rescinding the cited instructions and reinstatingearlier directives --- and I did see the note asserting that the action has no operative legal effect --- far more may be rescinded than just the language described as limiting prayer. I am not familiar with Air Force Instructions, but rescinding the Navy's19-page instruction and reinstating the earlier, 4-page instruction --- in addition to rescinding the sectionapparently at issue ---may also throw the following other provisions of thenewer instruction into question: the position of Deputy Chief of Chaplains for Reserve Affairs express language requiring chaplains to "strive to avoid the establishment of religion to ensure that free exercise rights are protected for all authorized personnel" and to "provide ministry to those of their own faith, facilitate ministry to those of other faiths, and care for all service members." a requirement for chaplains to "respect the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs." a prohibition against chaplains obtaining and wearing weapons or warfare qualifications an express prohibition against compelling chaplains "to participate in religious activities inconsistent with their beliefls" (suggesting, perhaps, that they can be so compelled?) a 3 1/2 page Department of the Navy policy on confidentiality ofcommunications made to chaplains and religious program specialists, including broad new protections for servicemembers and chaplains that exceed even the rules on privileged communications in the UCMJ a 6 1/2 page Department of the Navy policy on accommodation of religious practices within the Navy apparently designed to protect the rights of both chaplains and other servicemembers. For your convenience and some context, since my guess is that few have had the time to review the text of SECNAVINST 1730.7C, the key provisions at issue in all this appear to be inparagraphs 5.d. and 6.of the instruction. Paragraph 5.d. includes the following provisions (among others): (2) As a condition of appointment, every [Religious Ministry Professional (RMP)] must be willing to function in a pluralistic environment in the military, where diverse religious traditions exist side-by-side with tolerance and respect. Every RMP must be willing to support directly and indirectly the free exercise of religion by all military members of the DON, their family members, and other, persons authorized to be served, in cooperation with other chaplains and RMPs. Chaplains are trained to minister within the specialized demands of the military environment without compromising the tenets of their own religious tradition. (3) In providing religious ministry, chaplains shall strive to avoid the establishment of religion to ensure that free exercise rights are protected for all authorized personnel. (4) Chaplains will provide ministry to those of their own faith, facilitate ministry to those of other faiths, and care for all service members, including those who claim no religious faith. Chaplains shall respect the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs. Paragraph 6 includes the following provisions among others: b. Chaplains will not be compelled to participate in religious activities inconsistent with their beliefs. c. Commanders retain the responsibility to provide guidance for all command functions. In planning command functions, commanders shall determine whether a religious element is appropriate. In considering the appropriateness for including a religious element, commanders, with appropriate advice from a chaplain, should assess the setting and context of the function, the diversity of faith that may be represented among the participants; and whether the function is mandatory for all hands. Other than Divine/Religious Services, religious elements for a command function, absent extraordinary circumstances, should be non-sectarian in nature. Neither the participation of a chaplain, nor the inclusion of a religious element, in and of themselves, renders a command function a Divine Service or, public worship. Once a commander determines a religious element is appropriate, the chaplain may choose to participate based on his or her faith constraints. If the chaplain chooses not to participate, he or she may do so with no adverse consequences. Anyone accepting a commander's invitation to provide religious
