Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
To answer the last couple questions I read... Of course, the statute protects Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist chaplains too, and applies equally to mosques, temples, etc, not just churches. Conscientious objectors are administratively discharged from service, often based on a chaplain's interview andrecommendation, so that's another service we do provide, but we cannot advocate disobedience to military orders, which is rebellion. We can't tell Sailors to disobey, but we can advise them to obey their conscience, and advocate withthe commanding officer to respect their conscience, and he must then reasonably offer themdischarge, unless he wants to throw them in jail, which most CO's won't do, because they don't want bad press for coersion against conscience, or allegations of religious harassment. Which is why they should always eagerlygrant discharge, unless they want bad P.R. My CO failed this consideration, in forcing our Orthodox Sailor to remain in the Navy, ordering him to shave his beard, for example, when he cited a sincere religious objection. He should've granted discharge. Civilian pastors can advocate rebellion (civil disobedience), as MLK Jr. did in many churches, without the government invading the church to punish his sermons. So I'll concede military chaplains have more limited (not wider) discretion under the 1st Amendment, when it comes to advocating rebellion, we cannot, while civilian pastors can. But treason and violence are entirely out, as Prime Minister Blair is now advocating to invademosques to promote terrorism. I've no problem with that, if the pastor/imam is calling for treason or violence. A military chaplain who's a rabbi, I think, can advocate for Israel, even if it contradicted political views of the administration,which was the entire point of the Rigdon vs. Perry trial, which sided with the chaplain, as I understand the ruling. "Manner and form" isabsolutely equivalent to "substance and content," despite Steve's attempted distinction. And he said a strange thing here, perhaps I misunderstood... "I think chaplains have much broader latitude than the narrowest reading of the statute would permit, but I don't think this statute necessarily means as much as it might seem to." Question: So if the 1st Amendment is the only thing that could override the statute (Title 10 Section 6031), but the 1st A. gives chaplains even broader latitude, then the statute would never be overturned, correct? If the statute is valid, then federal judges must honor it, and side with the chaplain, always, because even the 1st A. requires the judge honor Title 10 Section 6031, which gives the chaplain autonomous rights during all public worship events. If so,Sandy and Steve are conceding, I think, that my memorial service (defined as "public worship" within the meaning of thestatute), lies entirely within the chaplain's autonomous discretion, according to the statute. I may allow individual people to hold private opinions about whether or not I "erred in judgment" (I personally don't think I did, and I'd preach it again that way), but regardless, I will not allow the government to render an official judgment that quoting the Bible is an "error in judgment."Military officialsjust don't have that right, in their official capacity. Their religious coersion and abuse of rank to enforce their faith upon me (and the deceased) is far more aggregious than anything I've heard of at the Air Force Academy, and far worse than any hurt feelings suffered by those who were "shocked" to hearthe Bible quotedin the chapel. Very respectfully, Chaplain K. Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sandy, First, I would need to interpret it to include things other than churches -- so rabbis, imams, and others can conduct services according to their own religious traditions for the most part. I don't think it extends to content like an imam saying "all good muslims will oppose the war in Iraq and refuse to go" or a Quaker or Buddhist advocating consciencious objection as the weekly diet of preaching or a Rabbi exhorting support for Israel and against the creation of a Palestinian state. All of these things happen in some mosques, synagogues, and meeting houses and could be claimed to be part of the "manner and form" of the religious tradition. But this highlights the distinction between "manner and form" on the one hand and substance and content on the other. So I could read the provision to be a formal one (singing, prayer, silence, whatever are allowed), but one where the government can censor what is said. That would be a permissible (though ill-advised, and I hope wrong) reading of the statute (leaving aside constitutional issues for a moment). Chaplains do not get carte blanche and this statute doesn't give it to them. As a matter of policy, and I would argue, constitutional protection of free exercise, I think chaplains have much broader latitude than the narrowest reading of the statute would permit,
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Sandy,First, I would need to interpret it to include things other than churches -- so rabbis, imams, and others can conduct services according to their own religious traditions for the most part.I don't think it extends to content like an imam saying "all good muslims will oppose the war in Iraq and refuse to go" or a Quaker or Buddhist advocating consciencious objection as the weekly diet of preaching or a Rabbi exhorting support for Israel and against the creation of a Palestinian state.All of these things happen in some mosques, synagogues, and meeting houses and could be claimed to be part of the "manner and form" of the religious tradition. But this highlights the distinction between "manner and form" on the one hand and substance and content on the other. So I could read the provision to be a formal one (singing, prayer, silence, whatever are allowed), but one where the government can censor what is said. That would be a permissible (though ill-advised, and I hope wrong) reading of the statute (leaving aside constitutional issues for a moment).Chaplains do not get carte blanche and this statute doesn't give it to them.As a matter of policy, and I would argue, constitutional protection of free exercise, I think chaplains have much broader latitude than the narrowest reading of the statute would permit, but I don't think this statute necessarily means as much as it might seem to.I have not researched the statute and am not an expert at all in military law or religion in the military, and so these comments are relatively off-the-cuff.SteveOn Oct 11, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Sanford Levinson wrote: But the content of the worship must be free from regulation, as Title 10 Section 6031 clearly allows: "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." I've yet to hear Chip, Sandy, Alan, Steve, or Paul people acknowledge the legitimacy of this law. Were you a judge, would you uphold this law as written? I'm asking. I do think such a law is legitimate on its face. I suppose the one question is what happens if a particular service is thought to present a "threat" to the military along the lines we've been discussing. But this would clearly be case-by-case, fact-intensive, as opposed to challenging the law above on its face. sandy___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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him."Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ 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
The argument about a ready made pool of potential converts was not just legal hyperbole .Jay Sekulow shortly after the passage of the Equal Access act did a fund raising piece labeling the nations public schools the largest unplowed mission field in the US. (I paraphrase from memory.)I helped write the school boards brief in Mergens Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 6:40 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance That was one of the arguments in Mergens. And I filed a brief supporting the student prayer club. But the government wasn't paying the leaders of the club, and it wasn't giving them officer's stripes. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 10/8/2005 5:26 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance In a message dated 10/8/2005 11:26:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That rationale for government-sponsored religion provides no rationale for government-sponsored efforts to initiate discussions of religious conversion. I am not entirely certain that this is, as a blanket rule, correct. What about chaplains credentialed by religious bodies whose creeds and vows and ordinations commit them to evangelism? Does the employment as a chaplain, together with the forward placement of the chaplain with a battle contingent constitute government-sponsored efforts to initiate discussions of religious conversion? What if all the government does is maintain a military, employ chaplains, and fail to order, affirmatively, such chaplains to refrain from sharing their faith to service members outside their faithgrouping? Is that government sponsored efforts? Before you leap to say no, and how silly can you be? remember that the opponents of the EAA, in their briefing at the Supreme Court in the Mergens case said that the EAA suffered from the vice of creating a ready made pool for proselyzing (an argument rejectedby the Court). 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
In a message dated 10/9/2005 7:11:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I assume, but am willing to stand corrected, that members of the armed forces can be prohibited from attending political rallies on such grounds. There are military discipline cases in this area. But they tend to focus on the identity of the attendee as a member of the Armed Services. And the importance of this identity issue increases as the numbers behind the E or O do (in other words, as one moves up through the ranks). So for example, did the captain wear his uniform when he stood on the stage and urged college students not to submit to conscription? Sometimesthe focus is in on mere attendance, but the issue is less developed than the identity and advocacy cases. The military has always maintained its prerogative to identify places as "off limits" and to enforce through disciplinary proceedings adherence to such determinations. As an example, during the tenure of one base commander at Camp Lejeune, a standing order issued listing specific "adult" businesses as off-limits because of frequency of violation of prostitution laws and service of alcohol to underaged soldiers, etc. 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
Alan's questions and thoughts below are excellent, and I don't think Chaplain Klingenschmitt has made any real effort to answer them. The Chaplain's response focused on Rigdon v. Perry, a decision that is no doubt important and seems to me to be correct. But the Chaplain does not seem prepared to acknowledge 1) Establishment Clause limits on what a government-employed clergyman may do in advancing his faith (or in casting doubt on others) in a government- sponsored setting (the memorial service) likely to include those who are there simply to pay respects; or 2) the military's overarching concerns with morale and religious divisiveness. No theory of the military chaplaincy (this is a subject begging for a good law review article) can be complete without attending to these questions. And why is the Chaplain characterizing the Weinstein suit vs. Air Force Academy as one against him (Klingenschmitt) personally, rather than (as it seems to be) against officers of a government institution who allegedly have permitted officers under their control to foster an environment that is religiously hostile to some cadets? I must add that the Chaplain's posts, his website, and his sermon at the memorial service (taken together) suggest a degree and kind of zeal that (however appropriate for a member of the private clergy) will inevitably produce tension with the sort of ecumenical spirit that seems to me essential to the military chaplain's role. Chip On 9 Oct 2005 at 17:20, Alan Brownstein 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 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
RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Chaplain Klingenschmitt, I never implied that you held a pro-coercion point of view, let alone that you were in favor of forced religious attendance or forced conversions. I merely invited you to consider the question of the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy itself, and pointed out that it has been considered before. I had read your site and I commend your anti-coercion stance. It appears that certain chaplains senior to you did actively advocate coercion for members of the navy to involuntarily attend religious services. They should know better. My point is that if a significant number of senior chaplains do not know that coerced attendance is unconstitutional, then it is time to question the integrity of the Navy Chaplaincy. It sounds to me like the military chaplaincy has become the opposite of what it contends to be. Perhaps my quote by Madison has hit the nail on the head. I would be interested in knowing more about the group of sailors who were subjected to this mandatory attendance. Can you give me the names of all the ships/units involved? The date and place of required attendance? Ill attempt to inform as many as possible that their right to religious liberty was violated, and Ill encourage them to sue. The discussion boards at military.com are good places to pass info to service members. It is highly revealing that my tax monies go to the State Departments worldwide hunt for violations of religious liberty when right here at home Im compelled to fund the Navy Chaplaincy who also engages in coercion. In Taliban-controlled areas, the Taliban had decreed that all Muslims were required to take part in five daily prayers. Those who were observed not praying at appointed times or who were late attending prayer were subject to punishment, including severe beatings. Friday noon prayers at mosques reportedly were compulsory for all Muslim men; women and girls reportedly were forbidden to enter mosques and thus were forced to pray at home. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/sa/8222.htm Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: 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 ) ___ 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
Thanks Chip, you're right, I wasn'tthorough in my answers to Alan, soI'll try again here Alan asked: * If a Chaplain's comments placed the physical security of militarypersonnel of other faiths atrisk, would such comments justify intervention? That, of course,is the extreme case and it is difficult to imagine anything likethat happening today. My answer is, yes, inciting TREASON, VIOLENCE, OR REBELLION would justify a government investigation of a Chaplain's speech, with appropriate disciplinary action IFcausation is provedbeyond reasonable doubt. * If a Chaplain's comments incited the harassment of military personnel of other faiths, wouldsuch comments justify some response from the authorities? If suchharassment in fact occurred and could fairly be understood to havebeen caused by a Chaplain's comments, would some kind ofintervention be warranted? My answer is,NO, the chaplain cannot be held accountable for others' choice to harass, when the chaplainisn't the one harassing. The term "fairly understood to have beencaused" isn't a high enough legal standard for proof of actual causation. I may buy it if you'd said "proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been caused" but that causation is hard to prove, when the harasser made his own free will choice to harass. And it'd be especially hard to prove, since even the most zealous and aggressivechaplains I know generally encourage (at least publicly)polite evangelism, and never rude evangelism.(Personally I only speak after "invitation-acceptance" and therefore can never harass.) Even at the Air Force Academy, the chaplain who encouraged students to evangelize theirfellow students (perhaps even mentioninghell) was cleared of any wrongdoing, since he did it in the chapel, quoting the Bible,encouraging peer discussion, not coersionbyrank. * If a Chaplain's comments caused distrust among military personnelof various faiths andundermined moral, that may be a harder case in part because ofthe indeterminacy of the harm alleged (distrust and loss ofmorale) and in part because of the difficulty in demonstratingcausation. Should we trust the judgment of military authorities insuch situations? Absolutely not. Perhaps inciting TREASON, VIOLENCE, OR REBELLION would justify a government investigation of a Chaplain's sermons,with appropriate disciplinary action. But morale? Clearly the government's burden, before invading the chapel, is higher than just alleging "he hurt my feelingsby speaking the truth." * If a Chaplain's comments during a memorial service for a soldieror sailor would beexperienced by military personnel of others faiths as disparagingor hurtfulto such an extent that they would feel unwelcome atthe service... Would holding dual services be an acceptablesolution to this last situation? Absolutely! Our deceased Sailor had FOUR memorials. -One candlelight, open microphone, open to all faithssession on the ship, -One 21 gun salute the next day from the back of the ship -My service in the chapel, advertised as a "Christian memorial service" -A formal Catholic funeral for the family in California. -And I suppose a few Sailors toasted him over drinks too...that makes five. People remember their friends in many ways. But MYDUTY to best honor his memory, was to honor his personal religion, and I did so by preaching THE SAME SERMON SCRIPTURESthat he personally embraced before he died. For the government to punish me for that sermon literallydishonors the personal religion of the deceased, a veteran who fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who deserved a proper Christian memorial. Shame on them for dishonoring his memory, and his faith. And to answer Chip's(excellently stated) points... 1) You're right, I'm not prepared toacknowledge ANY establishment clause limits on a chaplain's religious speech from the pulpit in the chapel, unless he incites treason, violence, or rebellion.All military chapel services (even regular Sunday morning services) are "government sponsored" in the sense they're advertised, funded, housed in government facilities. But the content of the worship must be free from regulation, as Title 10 Section 6031 clearly allows: "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." I've yet to hear Chip, Sandy, Alan, Steve, or Paulpeople acknowledge the legitimacy of this law. Were you a judge, would you uphold this law as written? I'm asking. 2) Morale and divisiveness are toolow a legal standard, the government must have a higher burden than just "he hurt my feelings" before invading the chapel. 3)I'll concede Mr. Weinstein's righteous disappointment with many of the abuses at the Air Force Academy (where I graduated in 1991, by the way, after leading many student evangelism outreaches), but I won't concede hisallegations involving the chaplain. Yale Divinity complained a chaplain (in the chapel, quoting the Bible) dared to encourage students to
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.u
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.
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Chip is absolutely right on the line to be drawn for military chaplains. With respect to Brad's distinction between involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort, and persuade, it is one large linguistic stretch to argue that pressure, exhort, and persuade are voluntarily accepted. They are means by which one person is trying to alter another person's views. Chaplains have no business "informing" recruits that their religious faith is "wrong" from his perspective. The members of the military are a captive audience in these circumstances, which makes the involuntary element in these circumstances more involuntary than usual. Marci In a message dated 10/7/2005 1:22:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think we're reading the wording differently. It came across to me as a request for a prohibition of attempting to do four things; 1) involuntarily convert, 2) pressure, 3) exhort, and 4) persuade. If they meant to have "involuntarily" apply to all four activities, then we would be in agreement that it isn't appropriate. Hopefully, as the litigation runs its course, the wording in the news coverage would be clarified so that we will understand more precisely what the plaintiff is asking for. Brad ___ 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
In a message dated 10/8/2005 8:22:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With respect to Brad's distinction between involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort, and persuade, it is one large linguistic stretch to argue that pressure, exhort, and persuade are voluntarily accepted. They are means by which one person is trying to alter another person's views. Chaplains have no business "informing" recruits that their religious faith is "wrong" from his perspective. The members of the military are a captive audience in these circumstances, which makes the involuntary element in these circumstances more involuntary than usual. Well, I would think that the First Amendment might give us briefest pause before categorical prohibitions are laid down. To show why Marci cannot be right when she says, "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective," let's start with the following hypothetical: Fr.. Morgan is credentialed by the Archdiocese of the Military to serve as a Roman Catholic chaplain and is commissioned as such in the U.S. Navy, and is detailed to serve as a chaplain to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, in coastal North Carolina. He is one of several chaplains aboard the base, which hosts, depending on deployments, between thirty and fifty thousand Marines. He is one of three RC chaplains. As part of his pastoral duties with the Catholic Chapel, he conducts an inquirers class once a week at the base's Catholic Chapel. During his classes, he includes an open period for questions. As it turns out, a class for inquiring into the Catholic faith attracts, among others,those who are on spiritual journeys and who are actively thinking about matters of faith and religion, in other words, people with questions. Lance Corporal Jones,whose family is Baptist, has found himself attracted to the Catholic faith because of the rich intellectual tradition that it has developed, together with its orthodoxy regarding things he believes are essential to Christian doctrine. He has not decided to convert, though, but he is considering the consequences of such a decision, in part his considerations take place in the inquirers' class, where he learns more about RC and where, on a regular basis, he engages Fr. Morgan in dialogues related to unique difference between RC and Baptist doctrine. When L.Cpl. Jonesputs the questions directly to Fr. Morgan aboutRC distinctives (such as celibacy for priests, the seven sacraments, veneration of Mary and the Saints, the Papacy, transubstantiation), Fr. Morgan carefully explains the basis in the Magisterium of the Church, in Sacred Scripture, and in the traditions of the Church. These areas are the ones about which L.Cpl. Jones entertains greatest doubt and trepidation over conversion. In essence and, when pressed, in fact, Fr. Morgan tells L.Cpl. Jones that his faith tradition is wrong on these questions. In this case,is it true that "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective?" Other examples abound. In a field hospital, a battle wounded evacuee asks to speak with a chaplain. The situation is grave, and so is the soldier's demeanor. "I'm afraid that I am going to die in sin," he whispers, his breathing catching as he pushes the words from his battered body. "But my dad always told me that foxhole conversions weren't real and that people that turn religious in moments of crisis are weak." Brief additional discussion confirms that the wounded soldier is an atheist experiencing doubts about his faith, and now asking how/whether he can turn to God in his time of need. Is it true that "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective?" 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
Jim's twoexamples are both cases where the potential convert is asking the chaplain to go further. Those examples suggest amore precise formulation of the proposed principle against efforts to convert, but are not at all inconsistent with the insight underlying that proposed principle. The justification for government-paid chaplains in the military command structure is that government can (and perhaps must) minister to the religious needs of soldiers it has removed from their ordinary civilian sources of religious support. That rationale for government-sponsored religion provides no rationale for government-sponsored efforts to initiate discussions of religious conversion. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sat 10/8/2005 9:07 AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance In a message dated 10/8/2005 8:22:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With respect to Brad's distinction between involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort, and persuade, it is one large linguistic stretch to argue that pressure, exhort, and persuade are voluntarily accepted. They are means by which one person is trying to alter another person's views. Chaplains have no business "informing" recruits that their religious faith is "wrong" from his perspective. The members of the military are a captive audience in these circumstances, which makes the involuntary element in these circumstances more involuntary than usual. Well, I would think that the First Amendment might give us briefest pause before categorical prohibitions are laid down. To show why Marci cannot be right when she says, "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective," let's start with the following hypothetical: Fr.. Morgan is credentialed by the Archdiocese of the Military to serve as a Roman Catholic chaplain and is commissioned as such in the U.S. Navy, and is detailed to serve as a chaplain to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, in coastal North Carolina. He is one of several chaplains aboard the base, which hosts, depending on deployments, between thirty and fifty thousand Marines. He is one of three RC chaplains. As part of his pastoral duties with the Catholic Chapel, he conducts an inquirers class once a week at the base's Catholic Chapel. During his classes, he includes an open period for questions. As it turns out, a class for inquiring into the Catholic faith attracts, among others,those who are on spiritual journeys and who are actively thinking about matters of faith and religion, in other words, people with questions. Lance Corporal Jones,whose family is Baptist, has found himself attracted to the Catholic faith because of the rich intellectual tradition that it has developed, together with its orthodoxy regarding things he believes are essential to Christian doctrine. He has not decided to convert, though, but he is considering the consequences of such a decision, in part his considerations take place in the inquirers' class, where he learns more about RC and where, on a regular basis, he engages Fr. Morgan in dialogues related to unique difference between RC and Baptist doctrine. When L.Cpl. Jonesputs the questions directly to Fr. Morgan aboutRC distinctives (such as celibacy for priests, the seven sacraments, veneration of Mary and the Saints, the Papacy, transubstantiation), Fr. Morgan carefully explains the basis in the Magisterium of the Church, in Sacred Scripture, and in the traditions of the Church. These areas are the ones about which L.Cpl. Jones entertains greatest doubt and trepidation over conversion. In essence and, when pressed, in fact, Fr. Morgan tells L.Cpl. Jones that his faith tradition is wrong on these questions. In this case,is it true that "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective?" Other examples abound. In a field hospital, a battle wounded evacuee asks to speak with a chaplain. The situation is grave, and so is the soldier's demeanor. "I'm afraid that I am going to die in sin," he whispers, his breathing catching as he pushes the words from his battered body. "But my dad always told me that foxhole conversions weren't real and that people that turn religious in moments of crisis are weak." Brief additional discussion confirms that the wounded soldier is an atheist experiencing doubts about his faith, and now asking how/whether he can turn to God in his time of need. Is it true that "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective?" Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ __
RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Hi, Chaplain Klingenschmitt. I introduced myself in a post a while back but have not posted since. I have followed this thread closely and am delighted that you have joined in. I am a former Coast Guard officer and helicopter pilot. Perhaps you might consider whether my being compelled to pay taxes to support the military chaplaincy violates my religious freedom. In their book, For God and Country: The History of a Constitutional Challenge to the Army Chaplaincy, Israel Drazin and Cecil B. Curry tell the story of the seven-year legal battle of Katcoff v. Marsh. Both Drazin and Currey are retired Army Chaplains, and Drazin himself played an important role in the Army's defense, as he was recalled from reserve status for the sole purpose of aiding in that defense. At the time of his recall he had is own law practice in Maryland. The book tells the entire story of the seven years of litigation, and is quite well written, yet it in many ways comes across as an angry, fist-pounding, axe-grinding monument to hard-line church-state accommodationism. Thomas Jefferson is mentioned only once, his Act for Establishing Religious Freedom is not mentioned at all, and James Madison is portrayed as being fickle. After all, Mr. Jeffersons Act stated, that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical, and Mr. Madison warned that it might be Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies navies of the world, and say whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most in view. Yet the book focuses on history and tradition to justify the chaplaincy, beginning, of all places, in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible. The authors waste little time before they quote Deuteronomy 20: 1-4: When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. From there the authors give a detailed historical background of military chaplaincies beginning in fourth century Rome and carry it all the way through the American colonial period, the new nation and then on into the modern U.S. Army. Throughout the proceedings the Army steadfastly claimed that the chaplaincy was necessary to ensure the free exercise of religion rights of military personnel, while the plaintiffs contended that a private chaplaincy funded through voluntary donations could serve the Army's needs. The book begins with the following paragraphs: The weather along most of the upper east coast was threatening, warning of future winter winds. While many Americans were looking forward to a time of thanksgiving, retailers across the land continued their hectic preparations for still another secular Christmas and an expected buying splurge by frantic consumers. Yet it was only 23 November 1979, still several days before the Thanksgiving holiday. On that day, two of the nation's citizens, Joel Katcoff and Allen M. Wieder, young men then aged twenty-four and twenty-five, seniors at Harvard Law School, began a monumental task. It had first occurred to them sometime earlier during a class on constitutional law. Their cause would bring them praise from some, condemnation from others. And the final outcome, more than six years later, would be uncertain. On that day in 1979, the two young men filed a civil law suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn. They complained that the Army chaplaincy violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Acting as their own counsel, they listed the address of their attorney as Apartment 33, 269 Harvard Street, in Cambridge, Massachusetts--the residence of Allen Wieder. And the book ends with the following paragraphs: What were the results of the years of effort on the part of
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Jim, of course, has taken my points out of context. When a recruit seeks out a chaplain for information about the chaplain's religion, that is entirely different from a chaplain engaging in proselytization on his or her own initiative. As Doug so rightly pointed out, the chaplain corps exists for the comfort of the soldiers, not as a new opportunity for a member of the clergy to gain new recruits. Those chaplains that cannot respect this distinction should not be military chaplains. There are plenty of positions in the private sphere for that kind of activity. Marci In a message dated 10/8/2005 10:08:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/8/2005 8:22:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With respect to Brad's distinction between involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort, and persuade, it is one large linguistic stretch to argue that pressure, exhort, and persuade are voluntarily accepted. They are means by which one person is trying to alter another person's views. Chaplains have no business "informing" recruits that their religious faith is "wrong" from his perspective. The members of the military are a captive audience in these circumstances, which makes the involuntary element in these circumstances more involuntary than usual. Well, I would think that the First Amendment might give us briefest pause before categorical prohibitions are laid down. To show why Marci cannot be right when she says, "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective," let's start with the following hypothetical: Fr.. Morgan is credentialed by the Archdiocese of the Military to serve as a Roman Catholic chaplain and is commissioned as such in the U.S. Navy, and is detailed to serve as a chaplain to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, in coastal North Carolina. He is one of several chaplains aboard the base, which hosts, depending on deployments, between thirty and fifty thousand Marines. He is one of three RC chaplains. As part of his pastoral duties with the Catholic Chapel, he conducts an inquirers class once a week at the base's Catholic Chapel. During his classes, he includes an open period for questions. As it turns out, a class for inquiring into the Catholic faith attracts, among others,those who are on spiritual journeys and who are actively thinking about matters of faith and religion, in other words, people with questions. Lance Corporal Jones,whose family is Baptist, has found himself attracted to the Catholic faith because of the rich intellectual tradition that it has developed, together with its orthodoxy regarding things he believes are essential to Christian doctrine. He has not decided to convert, though, but he is considering the consequences of such a decision, in part his considerations take place in the inquirers' class, where he learns more about RC and where, on a regular basis, he engages Fr. Morgan in dialogues related to unique difference between RC and Baptist doctrine. When L.Cpl. Jonesputs the questions directly to Fr. Morgan aboutRC distinctives (such as celibacy for priests, the seven sacraments, veneration of Mary and the Saints, the Papacy, transubstantiation), Fr. Morgan carefully explains the basis in the Magisterium of the Church, in Sacred Scripture, and in the traditions of the Church. These areas are the ones about which L.Cpl. Jones entertains greatest doubt and trepidation over conversion. In essence and, when pressed, in fact, Fr. Morgan tells L.Cpl. Jones that his faith tradition is wrong on these questions. In this case,is it true that "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective?" Other examples abound. In a field hospital, a battle wounded evacuee asks to speak with a chaplain. The situation is grave, and so is the soldier's demeanor. "I'm afraid that I am going to die in sin," he whispers, his breathing catching as he pushes the words from his battered body. "But my dad always told me that foxhole conversions weren't real and that people that turn religious in moments of crisis are weak." Brief additional discussion confirms that the wounded soldier is an atheist experiencing doubts about his faith, and now asking how/whether he can turn to God in his time of need. Is it true that "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective?" 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
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
A hypothetical: A soldier in General Washington's army suffers frostbite while camped at Valley Forge, and is ministered to by an Anglican priest. The soldier asks the Anglican whether it is true that God is on the side of King George and that the cold is sent from God to punish the rebels. What are the chances that religious freedom in America wouldbe as it is today had the priest offered the Anglican church's official view on that question? Military chaplains are there to serve the faith needs of the soldiers. It's usually not a fine line, and it shouldn't be so difficult for clergy to tell if the line's been crossed. There are plenty of other clergy available who can serve the soldiers' needs, I suspect. The soldiers are there to protect the First Amendment, and in the soldiers' exercise of that law, the chaplains are there to protect the soldiers' rights, not exercise their own. Ed Darrell Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, of course, has taken my points out of context. When a recruit seeks out a chaplain for information about the chaplain's religion, that is entirely different from a chaplain engaging in proselytization on his or her own initiative. As Doug so rightly pointed out, the chaplain corps exists for the comfort of the soldiers, not as a new opportunity for a member of the clergy to gain new recruits. Those chaplains that cannot respect this distinction should not be military chaplains. There are plenty of positions in the private sphere for that kind of activity. Marci In a message dated 10/8/2005 10:08:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/8/2005 8:22:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With respect to Brad's distinction between involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort, and persuade, it is one large linguistic stretch to argue that pressure, exhort, and persuade are voluntarily accepted. They are means by which one person is trying to alter another person's views. Chaplains have no business "informing" recruits that their religious faith is "wrong" from his perspective. The members of the military are a captive audience in these circumstances, which makes the involuntary element in these circumstances more involuntary than usual. Well, I would think that the First Amendment might give us briefest pause before categorical prohibitions are laid down. To show why Marci cannot be right when she says, "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective," let's start with the following hypothetical: Fr.. Morgan is credentialed by the Archdiocese of the Military to serve as a Roman Catholic chaplain and is commissioned as such in the U.S. Navy, and is detailed to serve as a chaplain to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, in coastal North Carolina. He is one of several chaplains aboard the base, which hosts, depending on deployments, between thirty and fifty thousand Marines. He is one of three RC chaplains. As part of his pastoral duties with the Catholic Chapel, he conducts an inquirers class once a week at the base's Catholic Chapel. During his classes, he includes an open period for questions. As it turns out, a class for inquiring into the Catholic faith attracts, among others,those who are on spiritual journeys and who are actively thinking about matters of faith and religion, in other words, people with questions. Lance Corporal Jones,whose family is Baptist, has found himself attracted to the Catholic faith because ! of the rich intellectual tradition that it has developed, together with its orthodoxy regarding things he believes are essential to Christian doctrine. He has not decided to convert, though, but he is considering the consequences of such a decision, in part his considerations take place in the inquirers' class, where he learns more about RC and where, on a regular basis, he engages Fr. Morgan in dialogues related to unique difference between RC and Baptist doctrine. When L.Cpl. Jonesputs the questions directly to Fr. Morgan aboutRC distinctives (such as celibacy for priests, the seven sacraments, veneration of Mary and the Saints, the Papacy, transubstantiation), Fr. Morgan carefully explains the basis in the Magisterium of the Church, in Sacred Scripture, and in the traditions of the Church. These areas are the ones about which L.Cpl. Jones entertains greatest doubt and trepidation over conversion. In essence and, when pressed, in fact, Fr. Morgan tells L.Cpl. Jones that his faith tradition is wrong on these questions. In this case,is it true that "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective?" Other examples abound. In a field hospital, a battle wounded evacuee asks to speak with a chaplain. The situation is grave, and so is the soldier's demeanor. "I'm afraid that I am going to die in sin," he whispers, his breathing catching as he pushes the words from his battered body.
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
If this is the distinction -- between responding to inquiries and engaging on proselytization on his own initiative (and that distinction makes sense to me) -- then Chaplain Klingenschmitt's problem is nicely framed. Which side of the line would you put him on? Can't he reasonably say that he didn't go out picking on an unwilling captive audience, but rather conducted a memorial service within his own faith tradition, which was part of his job description? Andy Koppelman At 12:10 PM 10/8/2005, you wrote: Jim, of course, has taken my points out of context. When a recruit seeks out a chaplain for information about the chaplain's religion, that is entirely different from a chaplain engaging in proselytization on his or her own initiative. As Doug so rightly pointed out, the chaplain corps exists for the comfort of the soldiers, not as a new opportunity for a member of the clergy to gain new recruits. Those chaplains that cannot respect this distinction should not be military chaplains. There are plenty of positions in the private sphere for that kind of activity. Marci In a message dated 10/8/2005 10:08:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/8/2005 8:22:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With respect to Brad's distinction between involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort, and persuade, it is one large linguistic stretch to argue that pressure, exhort, and persuade are voluntarily accepted. They are means by which one person is trying to alter another person's views. Chaplains have no business informing recruits that their religious faith is wrong from his perspective. The members of the military are a captive audience in these circumstances, which makes the involuntary element in these circumstances more involuntary than usual. Well, I would think that the First Amendment might give us briefest pause before categorical prohibitions are laid down. To show why Marci cannot be right when she says, Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective, let's start with the following hypothetical: Fr.. Morgan is credentialed by the Archdiocese of the Military to serve as a Roman Catholic chaplain and is commissioned as such in the U.S. Navy, and is detailed to serve as a chaplain to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, in coastal North Carolina. He is one of several chaplains aboard the base, which hosts, depending on deployments, between thirty and fifty thousand Marines. He is one of three RC chaplains. As part of his pastoral duties with the Catholic Chapel, he conducts an inquirers class once a week at the base's Catholic Chapel. During his classes, he includes an open period for questions. As it turns out, a class for inquiring into the Catholic faith attracts, among others, those who are on spiritual journeys and who are actively thinking about matters of faith and religion, in other words, people with questions. Lance Corporal Jones, whose family is Baptist, has found himself attracted to the Catholic faith because of the rich intellectual tradition that it has developed, together with its orthodoxy regarding things he believes are essential to Christian doctrine. He has not decided to convert, though, but he is considering the consequences of such a decision, in part his considerations take place in the inquirers' class, where he learns more about RC and where, on a regular basis, he engages Fr. Morgan in dialogues related to unique difference between RC and Baptist doctrine. When L.Cpl. Jones puts the questions directly to Fr. Morgan about RC distinctives (such as celibacy for priests, the seven sacraments, veneration of Mary and the Saints, the Papacy, transubstantiation), Fr. Morgan carefully explains the basis in the Magisterium of the Church, in Sacred Scripture, and in the traditions of the Church. These areas are the ones about which L.Cpl. Jones entertains greatest doubt and trepidation over conversion. In essence and, when pressed, in fact, Fr. Morgan tells L.Cpl. Jones that his faith tradition is wrong on these questions. In this case, is it true that Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective? Other examples abound. In a field hospital, a battle wounded evacuee asks to speak with a chaplain. The situation is grave, and so is the soldier's demeanor. I'm afraid that I am going to die in sin, he whispers, his breathing catching as he pushes the words from his battered body. But my dad always told me that foxhole conversions weren't real and that people that turn religious in moments of crisis are weak. Brief additional discussion confirms that the wounded soldier is an atheist experiencing doubts about his faith, and now asking how/whether he can turn to God in his time of need. Is it true that Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
In a message dated 10/8/2005 11:26:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That rationale for government-sponsored religion provides no rationale for government-sponsored efforts to initiate discussions of religious conversion. I am not entirely certain that this is, as a blanket rule, correct. What about chaplains credentialed by religious bodies whose creeds and vows and ordinations commit them to evangelism? Does the employment as a chaplain, together with the forward placement of the chaplain with a battle contingent constitute "government-sponsored efforts to initiate discussions of religious conversion?" What if all the government does is maintain a military, employ chaplains, and fail to order, affirmatively, such chaplains to refrain from sharing their faith to service members outside their faithgrouping? Is that "government sponsored efforts?" Before you leap to say "no," and "how silly can you be?" remember that the opponents of the EAA, in their briefing at the Supreme Court in the Mergens case said that the EAA suffered from the vice of creating a ready made pool for proselyzing (an argument rejectedby the Court). 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
In a message dated 10/8/2005 1:11:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim, of course, has taken my points out of context. When a recruit seeks out a chaplain for information about the chaplain's religion, that is entirely different from a chaplain engaging in proselytization on his or her own initiative. As Doug so rightly pointed out, the chaplain corps exists for the comfort of the soldiers, not as a new opportunity for a member of the clergy to gain new recruits. Those chaplains that cannot respect this distinction should not be military chaplains. There are plenty of positions in the private sphere for that kind of activity. More precisely, what I did is inquire into whether there were principled limitations on what was, as stated by you, a fairly flat, fairly complete rule of prohibition. An aside: During the Vietnam Era, protests in front of the White House tested the administrative and police responses of the National Park Service. In a case arising out of mass arrests, the DC Circuit essentially said, you can't take the hamfisted approach you have hear. For example, if you are going to have a permit process for allocating scarce speech resources, then you have to comply with the prior restraint doctrine. Ever since then, the National Park Service has claimed that the DC Circuit has ordered it to employ a permit system for allocating scarce speech resources under its control. In fact it did no such thing. Here, there are probably two, three, four or more different approaches that might be taken to providing chaplain services to military service members. But if we are going to pretend that the one that is used is the only one that there can be, a failure to be consistent about it probably signals that some kind of nonsense is afoot. For example, if we are going to employ actual credentialed ministers from faith groups, in rough approximation to population, and if they are to be employed for the benefit of service members in keeping with the strictures of the credentialing bodies, how can such conflicts be avoided. Do we reject evangelical ministers, do we order Chaplain Klingenschmidt to silence? It's fine for an Episcopal Bishop from Indianapolis to claim (as one did in a debate with me at the ICLU annual convention a few years back) that religion is a private matter for one's home and one's place of worship. But not everyone shares that view of faith. Some believe that they are compelled to share their faith. Not necessarily to be bludgeons for belief, but to present the Gospel with gentleness and respect, but to present it. 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
That was one of the arguments in Mergens. And I filed a brief supporting the student prayer club. But the government wasn't paying the leaders of the club, and it wasn't giving them officer's stripes. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 10/8/2005 5:26 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance In a message dated 10/8/2005 11:26:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That rationale for government-sponsored religion provides no rationale for government-sponsored efforts to initiate discussions of religious conversion. I am not entirely certain that this is, as a blanket rule, correct. What about chaplains credentialed by religious bodies whose creeds and vows and ordinations commit them to evangelism? Does the employment as a chaplain, together with the forward placement of the chaplain with a battle contingent constitute government-sponsored efforts to initiate discussions of religious conversion? What if all the government does is maintain a military, employ chaplains, and fail to order, affirmatively, such chaplains to refrain from sharing their faith to service members outside their faith grouping? Is that government sponsored efforts? Before you leap to say no, and how silly can you be? remember that the opponents of the EAA, in their briefing at the Supreme Court in the Mergens case said that the EAA suffered from the vice of creating a ready made pool for proselyzing (an argument rejected by the Court). Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ winmail.dat___ 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
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.
RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
As some of you know, I have rather strong political views. Yet I have argued in my constitutional law classes that it would be perfectly constitutional (and perhaps desirable to boot) if a condition of my employment were that I could not wear campaign buttons in my classes or otherwise make clearly political statements. (Indeed, I do not wear such buttons and I do not recall ever making statements of support for, or against, candidates, in class.) Even more to the point, it is clearly the case that I cannot come in one morning and say, "Don't all of your realize that the most important question is whether you have achieved eternal salvation? Therefore, we're devoting the rest of our time together to exploring how best to achieve that state." I can be fired for not adhering to the job description that says I'm to talk about constitutional law. A chaplain, obviously, has a certain freedom to engage in overt religious activity, including telling those who show up voluntarily at services how lucky they are to be on the road to eternal life while everyone else is on the road to eternal damnation. [The memorial service is a close case. Ultimately, I think that the desire of the military to protect unit cohesion takes precedence over the chaplain's freedom to make invidious comparisons of the deceased's religious choices as against thoseo who do not share his faith, but I can see the argument for the other side.] 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. The FE Clause is no stronger than the Free Speech Clause in such circumstances. 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
Brad,let me quote what you quoted:On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:2) The lawsuit "asks the Air Force to prohibit its members — including chaplains — from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.'" emphasis added by me.Isn't this exactly the standard you are asking for? Does it not allow voluntary discussions of the type you want?I also think you are overestimating the internal strength of most people, armed forces leaders included, if you think a senior cadet or any teacher is not in an inherently superior position to a new recruit, or even another student peer. I think you may also be underestimating the effect of years of propaganda on even the most internally focused person. People can be persuaded by constant refrain of many heinous things, let alone by more seemingly benign promises of salvation.Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on."Robert Frost ___ 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
It seems to me that the suit seeks far more than a ban on "involuntary" conversion. It seeks to ban attempts to convert or prostylize OR attempting "to involuntarily convert . . ." It looks like the plaintiffcontents that any attempt to convert or prostylize (I think that is what chaplains do) is per se off limits. Short of a gun the head, attempting to "involuntarily convert" is an oxymoron.I doubtthat the real objective of the plaintiff is to prevent attempts at involuntary conversion. If the only goal of the suit is to prevent service men and women from being forced to attend religious services against their will - I doubt if anyone on this list would disagree. However, it appears to be an attempt tocompel silence from anyperson with whose religious views the plaintiff disagrees. Steve Prescott From: Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intoleranceDate: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:14:09 -0400Brad, let me quote what you quoted: On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: 2) The lawsuit "asks the Air Force to prohibit its members including chaplains from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.'" emphasis added by me. Isn't this exactly the standard you are asking for? Does it not allow voluntary discussions of the type you want? I also think you are overestimating the internal strength of most people, armed forces leaders included, if you think a senior cadet or any teacher is not in an inherently superior position to a new recruit, or even another student peer. I think you may also be underestimating the effect of years of propaganda on even the most internally focused person. People can be persuaded by constant refrain of many heinous things, let alone by more seemingly benign promises of salvation. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamarvox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on." Robert Frost ___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: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
On Oct 7, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Stephen R. Prescott, Esq. wrote:It seems to me that the suit seeks far more than a ban on "involuntary" conversion. It seeks to ban attempts to convert or prostylize OR attempting "to involuntarily convert . . ." It looks like the plaintiff contents that any attempt to convert or prostylize (I think that is what chaplains do) is per se off limits. Short of a gun the head, attempting to "involuntarily convert" is an oxymoron. Not at all. Look at the word "attempt." "I'm going to try to convert you whether you want me to or not" -- is not an oxymoron -- it happens every day. I doubt that the real objective of the plaintiff is to prevent attempts at involuntary conversion. Why? Why is it likely at all that the "real objective" is to "compel silence from any person with whose religious views the plaintiff disagrees? The relief requested is far from that and I have never ever seen the ACLU or others in these suits seeking to silence people to that extent! To prevent them from using their positions of authority in a coercive manner -- yes -- and to prevent them from exposing a compelled audience from proselytizing, yes. But silencing? No.As to the grammar -- I guess one who is suspicious could read it the way you do -- I guess I read them all as just examples of involuntary exposure to unwanted attempts at conversion. While I think with Brad I have mostly a semantic problem, it seems to me that Mr. Prescott and I have such radically different world views that it is much more. The point is not just religious services -- it is all the other encounters too. If the only goal of the suit is to prevent service men and women from being forced to attend religious services against their will - I doubt if anyone on this list would disagree. However, it appears to be an attempt to compel silence from any person with whose religious views the plaintiff disagrees. Wow! This is quite a stretch!Steve Prescott From: Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intoleranceDate: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:14:09 -0400Brad, let me quote what you quoted: On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: 2) The lawsuit "asks the Air Force to prohibit its members — including chaplains — from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.'" emphasis added by me. Isn't this exactly the standard you are asking for? Does it not allow voluntary discussions of the type you want? I also think you are overestimating the internal strength of most people, armed forces leaders included, if you think a senior cadet or any teacher is not in an inherently superior position to a new recruit, or even another student peer. I think you may also be underestimating the effect of years of propaganda on even the most internally focused person. People can be persuaded by constant refrain of many heinous things, let alone by more seemingly benign promises of salvation. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on."Robert Frost___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.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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar"For all men of good will May 17, 1954, came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of enforced segregation. . . . It
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
I think we're reading the wording differently. It came across to me as a request for a prohibition of attempting to do four things; 1) involuntarily convert, 2) pressure, 3) exhort, and 4) persuade. If they meant to have involuntarily apply to all four activities, then we would be in agreement that it isn't appropriate. Hopefully, as the litigation runs its course, the wording in the news coverage would be clarified so that we will understand more precisely what the plaintiff is asking for. Brad Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/07/2005 11:14 AM Please respond to Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu cc Subject Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance Brad, let me quote what you quoted: On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: 2) The lawsuit asks the Air Force to prohibit its members including chaplains from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.' emphasis added by me. Isn't this exactly the standard you are asking for? Does it not allow voluntary discussions of the type you want? I also think you are overestimating the internal strength of most people, armed forces leaders included, if you think a senior cadet or any teacher is not in an inherently superior position to a new recruit, or even another student peer. I think you may also be underestimating the effect of years of propaganda on even the most internally focused person. People can be persuaded by constant refrain of many heinous things, let alone by more seemingly benign promises of salvation. Steve -- 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://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on. Robert Frost ___ 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: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
The discussion of this suit has not been appropriately sensitive to the fact that the Air Force Academy is a governmental institution, in which conventional constitutional norms totally forbid a cadre of state-employed clergy. These chaplains are only permitted by analogy to military chaplains -- AFA cadets are away from home, and are in military service, so the Air Force provides chaplains to minister to cadets' expressed spiritual needs. Chaplains (in service academies, or in active duty armed forces) should not to be trying to convert anyone. Active conversion efforts are quite outside their assigned (and constitutionally circumscribed) role. Attempts to proselytize by fellow students, not acting as agents of the government, stand on a different footing. Up to the point of harassment, cadets should be free to try to convert other cadets. But in that sort of highly controlled environment, the government should be unusually sensitive to religious harassment -- that is, unwanted conversion efforts, or denigration of the faiths of fellow cadets (by students or anyone else). Chip Lupu On 7 Oct 2005 at 12:00, Stephen R. Prescott, Esq. wrote: It seems to me that the suit seeks far more than a ban on involuntary conversion. It seeks to ban attempts to convert or prostylize OR attempting to involuntarily convert . . . It looks like the plaintiffcontents that any attempt to convert or prostylize (I think that is what chaplains do) is per se off limits. Short of a gun the head, attempting to involuntarily convert is an oxymoron.I doubtthat the real objective of the plaintiff is to prevent attempts at involuntary conversion. If the only goal of the suit is to prevent service men and women from being forced to attend religious services against their will - I doubt if anyone on this list would disagree. However, it appears to be an attempt tocompel silence from anyperson with whose religious views the plaintiff disagrees. Steve Prescott From: Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:14:09 -0400 Brad, let me quote what you quoted: On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: 2) The lawsuit asks the Air Force to prohibit its members including chaplains from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.' emphasis added by me. Isn't this exactly the standard you are asking for? Does it not allow voluntary discussions of the type you want? I also think you are overestimating the internal strength of most people, armed forces leaders included, if you think a senior cadet or any teacher is not in an inherently superior position to a new recruit, or even another student peer. I think you may also be underestimating the effect of years of propaganda on even the most internally focused person. People can be persuaded by constant refrain of many heinous things, let alone by more seemingly benign promises of salvation. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamarvox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on. Robert Frost ___ 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. (Chip) Lupu F. Elwood Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 (202) 994-7053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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
Chip, Denigration would need to be clearly defined. I know that there are those who would say that it is denigrating to simply say you believe a person's faith is wrong, but there's an important distinction. When two different religions teach things that are mutually exclusive, then either one of them is wrong or they are both wrong, but they can't both be right. The best example is the teaching of my own faith that Jesus rose from the dead. If somebody is a member of a faith which does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then intellectual honesty requires them to say that they believe my faith is wrong, and that doesn't denigrate me. It simply acknowledges that we believe different things to be true. If they move on to say, And consequently, anybody who believes in the resurrection is an idiot, that's when it becomes denigration. Even when it is a governmental entity such as a military academy, drawing the distinction between disagreement and denigration keeps the institution from having to choose between the Establishment Clause on the one hand and the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses on the other. Brad Chip Lupu wrote on 10/07/2005 12:21:13 PM: But in that sort of highly controlled environment, the government should be unusually sensitive to religious harassment -- that is, unwanted conversion efforts, or denigration of the faiths of fellow cadets (by students or anyone else). Chip Lupu ___ 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
In the context of government-employed chaplains, I just don't agree with drawing any line between denigration and teaching. If a Christian or a non-Christian cadet asks a chaplain about Christian belief, the chaplain should of course answer. But if the chaplain knows the cadet to be a non-Christian, the chaplain has no business teaching the non-Christian about the chaplain's view of whether Jesus rose from the dead. That teaching is outside the chaplain's authority (and officially authorizing the chaplain to so teach would violate the Constitution, because it exceeds the very limited jurisdiction that government has to teach religion to cadets or soldiers.) Chip On 7 Oct 2005 at 12:56, Brad M Pardee wrote: Chip, Denigration would need to be clearly defined. I know that there are those who would say that it is denigrating to simply say you believe a person's faith is wrong, but there's an important distinction. When two different religions teach things that are mutually exclusive, then either one of them is wrong or they are both wrong, but they can't both be right. The best example is the teaching of my own faith that Jesus rose from the dead. If somebody is a member of a faith which does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then intellectual honesty requires them to say that they believe my faith is wrong, and that doesn't denigrate me. It simply acknowledges that we believe different things to be true. If they move on to say, And consequently, anybody who believes in the resurrection is an idiot, that's when it becomes denigration. Even when it is a governmental entity such as a military academy, drawing the distinction between disagreement and denigration keeps the institution from having to choose between the Establishment Clause on the one hand and the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses on the other. Brad Chip Lupu wrote on 10/07/2005 12:21:13 PM: But in that sort of highly controlled environment, the government should be unusually sensitive to religious harassment -- that is, unwanted conversion efforts, or denigration of the faiths of fellow cadets (by students or anyone else). Chip Lupu Ira C. (Chip) Lupu F. Elwood Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 (202) 994-7053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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 realize Ive fallen behind on this thread. But to answer your questions, Brad, -- in my 25 years of teaching, no student has ever initiated a conversation with me that would justify my exhorting them to accept the tenets of Judaism. Indeed, Im hard pressed to imagine a situation where this might occur. In response to questions, I have told students who asked me where in town they could go to attend High Holy Day services but that doesnt constitute exhortation. As for the officer who suggests to subordinates that real men drink and chase women, that may be stupid and insensitive, but it probably does not raise constitutional concerns. Religion is special. Exhorting a subordinate about religion is like exhorting a subordinate to support a political candidate. Its off limits because the government, and particularly the military, can not endorse specific religious faiths or political parties. Basically, I think public school teachers, public university professors, military officers, and other government officials are given considerable discretionary power over students and subordinates. Along with that power goes a corresponding responsibility. No one subject to such power should have to worry that their religious or political affiliation will influence the way that power is exercised. I think Chip is absolutely correct that government officials acting in their official capacity have no authority to teach, exhort, or persuade citizens to adopt the officials religious beliefs and that such teaching or exhortation would violate the First Amendment. Further, the risk of abuse in these hierarchical situations is so great that a prophylactic rule is entirely appropriate. Alan Brownstein UC Davis From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:40 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance Alan, I think it would all depend on the nature of the relationship. I can look to my own experience on this. While in high school, it was a teacher who first shared the gospel with me. Some would consider that impermissable. In hindsight, though, I can say without question that, when my parents divorced six months later, I would have undoubtedly killed myself, so I would say that she saved my life. I had a friendship with her, though, that made such a conversation permissible. There were other teachers with whom I was not friends, and in those cases, the conversation would not have been permissible. I think that's the problem with one-size-fits-all solutions which fail to take into account the differing nature of relationships between different persons. Another significant point is that you say you would never initiate a conversation. Suppose, however, in the course of casual conversation, the subject comes up, initiated by the student. Would you still consider it impermissible? Finally, I don't think it should be that difficult to lay down guidlines to ensure that any subordinate is free to be as willing or unwilling as they wish to be. Suppose, as a hypothetical, that an officer makes it clear that he thinks a real man goes into town on weekend liberty to go drinking and chasing women. Would the subordinate have a claim if he didn't feel free to be unwilling to hear the officer's exhortations? If not, then why would the subordinate have a claim when the subject is religion? If so, then that speaks poorly about the internal strength of the people in our military forces. Brad Alan Brownstein wrote: Brad, Would you agree that in a situation where one individual is in a position of authority over another that attempts to exhort or persuade are impermissible. As a law professor at a public university, I would never initiate a conversation with one of my students in an attempt to exhort or persuade him to change his religious beliefs. In the military, the situation is much more coercive. An allegedly willing subordinate who is exhorted to adopt the religious beliefs of a superior officer may not have felt free to be unwilling to hear the officers exhortations. Alan Brownstein UC Davis ___ 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
Navy chaplain here...hope I'm not intruding...I sincerely admire all of you. Alan said: "I think Chip is absolutely correct that government officials acting in their official capacity have no authority to teach, exhort, or persuade citizens to adopt the officials religious beliefs and that such teaching or exhortation would violate the First Amendment." But certainly, Alan and Chip (and Sandy), you don't really believe youradvocated restriction on religious speech should apply to military chaplains, who act in their official capacity, (wearing an overt religious symbol on their uniform...such as a cross), and are paidtoquote the scripturesduring voluntarily attendedcounseling orchurch services...do you? Why is Mr. Weinstein (and Yale Divinity) trying tomuzzle the chaplains? When four senior chaplains advised my CO to punish me (in writing...see proof documents on my web-site) and try to end my career, literally because I was deemed "insensitive" for praying "in Jesus name" and for quoting John 3:36 during an optionally attended worship service in the base chapel (advertised as a Christian memorial service, honoring the Christian faith of a deceased member of my own flock), really, don't you think they broke the law? I wonder if you'll concede, at least in legal theory (if not in Navy practice), that military chaplains should havemore free speech rights than other officers, when acting in our official religious capacity?Your whole "voluntary/involuntary conversion" issue was at the center of my case...they attended voluntarily...I preached a conversion message...and I was punished for my speech. I won't be offended if you publicly disagree with me. (I'm only a guest here, afterall). But I was surprised and disappointed at how silent the members of this list became, when my story hit the front page of the Washington Post...I even cited manyrelevant militarylaws in two previous posts...nobody said a word about those laws...some even promised me to research and comment later...but never did... The relevant Post clip is below if anybody's brave enough nowthat storydirectly corresponds to this thread.The Posteven quoted Mr. Weinstein against methe same guy who's now suing the Air Force (to silence evenchaplains)...but I wonder if anybody'd defend us poor old chaplains... since I know you all sincerelyvalue freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Don't you? Very respectfully, Navy Chaplain Klingenschmitt www.persuade.tv - From the front page of the Washington Post, by Alan Cooperman. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082902036_pf.html "...But the model of chaplaincy advocated by older chaplains such as Iasiello, which hinges on self-restraint, is increasingly under challenge by younger ones, such as Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, 37. Three years ago, Klingenschmitt left the Air Force, where he had been a missile officer for 11 years, and joined the Navy as a chaplain. He took a demotion and a pay cut to make the switch. But he was joyful. "I had been serving my country," he said. "I wanted to serve God." It was not long, however, before disillusionment set in. At the Navy Chaplains School in Newport, R.I., a senior military minister gave Klingenschmitt and other new chaplains a lesson in how to offer prayers in public settings. Classmates who prayed to a generic "God" or "Almighty" won praise. Those who prayed "in the name of Jesus" were counseled to be more sensitive, according to Klingenschmitt. As a minister from a small evangelical denomination, the Evangelical Episcopal Church, Klingenschmitt bristled at those instructions. He wrote a paper citing a Pentagon regulation that "chaplains shall be permitted to conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which they are members." Aboard the USS Anzio, his first post, he backed a Jewish sailor's request to receive kosher meals and tried to get permission for a Muslim crewman to take a turn offering the nightly benediction over the ship's public address system. But Klingenschmitt also insisted on his own right to preach what he believes as a born-again Christian. In July 2004, he was reprimanded for a sermon at the memorial service of a sailor who died in a motorcycle accident. The sailor, Klingenschmitt said in a recent interview, was a Catholic, "and I had led him to a born-again experience before he died." In the sermon, he said, he emphasized that the sailor was certainly in heaven and "mentioned in passing" that according to John 3:36, those who do not accept Jesus are doomed for eternity. "My sermon was in the base chapel, it was optional attendance, and it was by invitation. If we can't quote certain scriptures in the base chapel when people are invited to church, where can we quote them?" he said. "Don't paint me as a person who's going around forcing my faith on people. I've never done that." In March, Klingenschmitt's commander
Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Perhaps some of his sailor mates who were not evangelicals or born again or even Christian would want to attend the memorial service and in doing so would want it to be less sectarian and not include a conversion message. This is not the same as a regularly held service for a particular group. Memorial services are different, even if optional -- or were several different ones held or planned?The devil is in the details. If one does not believe in tolerance and in inclusion in such services, perhaps the military is the wrong place to be.Why should chaplains have more latitude to offend than others? Indeed, should not chaplains be held to an even higher level of sensitivity to the religious diversity in the population being served?SteveOn Oct 7, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: When four senior chaplains advised my CO to punish me (in writing...see proof documents on my web-site) and try to end my career, literally because I was deemed "insensitive" for praying "in Jesus name" and for quoting John 3:36 during an optionally attended worship service in the base chapel (advertised as a Christian memorial service, honoring the Christian faith of a deceased member of my own flock), really, don't you think they broke the law? -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"There are obviously two educations. One should teach us how to make a living and the other how to live."James Truslow Adams ___ 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
Thanks for your question Steve... Chaplains should have more latitude, because it's our primary duty topray and preach our faith, and lead our church.Our first allegiancewhen leading worship (as defined bylaw) is to remain faithful to our beliefs, as taught usby our civilian endorsing bishop (not by the commanding officer). US Code Title 10 Section 6031 says: "An officer in the chaplain corps may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he isa member." The exact text of my sermon is posted at my web-site, and I believe it wasappropriately sensitive, yet faithful to the Bible. If attendees believethe Bible itself is insensitive, I'm sad for them, but I cannot delete portions of the text while remaining true to its meaning.Does the government have legal authority to decide which Bible verses aredeemed "sensitive" enough for government approval, and which are "too insensitive" and therefore forbidden? Because of the religious nature of their speech, Chaplains must have autonomous authority over the content of their prayers and sermons, and not allow the government to censor it. The Supreme Court (1991, Lee vs. Weisman) already ruled that, saying: "The government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds..." And in (Chaplain) Ridgon vs. (SECNAV) Perry (1997) a federal judge already ruled that military chaplains have absolute autonomy over their sermons. This Christian memorial service was one of four held for that Sailor...two "secular" memorials were held on the ship, one for his family in California, and the one I presided at (in the chapel) honored the decedent's faith...I evenpreached the same sermonembraced by the decedent shortly before he died). The crew had many opportunities elsewhere to remember their friend. But my primary sensitivity was toward the deceased. He served his country, and he deserved a Christian burial/memorial. Preaching my faith doesn't make me intolerant of other faiths, it only means I cannot practice their faith, nor can I preach their message.I appointed lay-leaders for other faiths to lead their own groups, I invited Muslims/Jews/Wiccans to teach my religion class (and say the evening prayer), 84% of my Sailors agreed "The Command Chaplain cares for all denominations, regardless of faith or belief" and I led volunteers from all faiths to win six awards for volunteerism, including bestvolunteering small ship in the Navy.All chaplains practice inclusiveness, and yetevangelical Christians are routinely excluded (as you suggest we should be) which explains whyover 60 evangelical chaplains are now involved in a class action lawsuit against the Navy, citing religious discrimination in hiring and promotions, because of our faith, and because discriminatorstell us to "go minister elsewhere," denyingevangelical Sailors who lik! e our sermons the right to hear uspreach their own faith. Very respectfully, Chaplain Klingenschmitt www.persuade.tv Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intoleranceDate: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:45:06 -0400To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduPerhaps some of his sailor mates who were not evangelicals or born again or even Christian would want to attend the memorial service and in doing so would want it to be less sectarian and not include a conversion message. This is not the same as a regularly held service for a particular group. Memorial services are different, even if optional -- or were several different ones held or planned? The devil is in the details. If one does not believe in tolerance and in inclusion in such services, perhaps the military is the wrong place to be. Why should chaplains have more latitude to offend than others? Indeed, should not chaplains be held to an even higher level of sensitivity to the religious diversity in the population being served? Steve On Oct 7, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: When four senior chaplains advised my CO to punish me (in writing...see proof documents on my web-site) and try to end my career, literally because I was deemed "insensitive" for praying "in Jesus name" and for quoting John 3:36 during an optionally attended worship service in the base chapel (advertised as a Christian memorial service, honoring the Christian faith of a deceased member of my own flock), really, don't you think they broke the law? -- Prof. Steven D. Jamarvox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "There are obviously two educations. One should teach us how to make a living and the other how to live." James Truslow Adams Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million
Air Force sued over religious intolerance
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/academy_religion A couple things particularly caught my attention in this article. 1) There have been complaints at the academy that a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and that another Jew was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet. I've been an evangelical for over 25 years, and I've never heard any evangelical even hint that the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus. Nor have I ever head an evangelical refer to Jews as Christ killers. I know that terrible things like these are said, but they certainly aren't a part of any evangelical theology I've ever heard. It feels similar to those who would portray Fred Phelps as being representative of all people who believe homosexual behavior is wrong or those who would portray abortion clinic bombers as being representative of all pro-lifers. Makes my cynical side a little suspicious. 2) The lawsuit asks the Air Force to prohibit its members including chaplains from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.' While it's a given that nobody should be required to discuss religious matters against their will, there shouldn't be a problem with people discussing these matters with those who are willing. Unless they are going to ban all non-work related conversation while on duty, I don't how they could single out one subject and say that such conversations are forbidden, even when all parties to the conversation are agreeable. Brad___ 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 surprised that you've never heard any evangelical state the Holocaust was revenge for killing Jesus or refer to Jews as Christ killers. I have heard such from Catholics, traditional denominational Christians, and evangelical Christians. At one time it was official Catholic church doctrine, if I recall my religious history correctly, and from there the idea continued on even long after the doctrine was abandoned.The second item recognizes voluntary/involuntary conversation distinction you are making -- or am I misreading it? I have also found that what some evangelicals consider mere witnessing comes across to me and even more so to many others as inappropriate, or at least unwanted evangelizing or proselytizing. In a rigid hierarchy like the military where superior rank is based on when your papers were signed giving you your rank, this can be a serious problem in a practical way.I think the problem did not arise from one or two or even a dozen cadets meeting together, publicizing meetings, or one-on-one witnessing. It arose, as I understand it, from creating a pervasive culture in which the non-evangelical students were harassed and marginalized from officers from the top (or near the top) down. It happened when the majority started to oppress the minority. SteveOn Oct 6, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/academy_religion A couple things particularly caught my attention in this article. 1) "There have been complaints at the academy that a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and that another Jew was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet." I've been an evangelical for over 25 years, and I've never heard any evangelical even hint that the Holocaust was "revenge for the death of Jesus". Nor have I ever head an evangelical refer to Jews as "Christ killers". I know that terrible things like these are said, but they certainly aren't a part of any evangelical theology I've ever heard. It feels similar to those who would portray Fred Phelps as being representative of all people who believe homosexual behavior is wrong or those who would portray abortion clinic bombers as being representative of all pro-lifers. Makes my cynical side a little suspicious. 2) The lawsuit "asks the Air Force to prohibit its members — including chaplains — from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.'" While it's a given that nobody should be required to discuss religious matters against their will, there shouldn't be a problem with people discussing these matters with those who are willing. Unless they are going to ban all non-work related conversation while on duty, I don't how they could single out one subject and say that such conversations are forbidden, even when all parties to the conversation are agreeable. Brad___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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear."Aristotle ___ 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
Steve, It may be that I've been fortunate in the people I've had around me. I was raised Presbyterian, and I don't remember hearing anything said there about Jews at all unless we were talking about Old Testament history and things like that. As an evangelical, I've heard that there were individuals, some of whom were Roman and some of whom were Jewish, who brought about the death of Christ, and that only those specific individuals could be held accountable for those actions. I've heard that the Holocaust was about Satan's unending hatred for the people with whom God had made a covenant going back to Abraham. As I said, though, it may be that I've simply been fortunate in the people I've had around me. As far as the second item goes, nobody should be harassed or marginalized. The action being requested by the plaintiff, though, seems to go beyond righting those wrongs. While the hierarachy of the military certainly present different challenges in this matter than those of us in civillian life face, there should be a way to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We should be able to find a way, within the constraints of the military hierarchy, to permit conversations that are freely entered into by all parties without jeopardizing the rights of those who do not wish to discuss the subject from being made unwilling participants. Brad Steven Jamar wrote: I'm surprised that you've never heard any evangelical state the Holocaust was revenge for killing Jesus or refer to Jews as Christ killers. I have heard such from Catholics, traditional denominational Christians, and evangelical Christians. At one time it was official Catholic church doctrine, if I recall my religious history correctly, and from there the idea continued on even long after the doctrine was abandoned. The second item recognizes voluntary/involuntary conversation distinction you are making -- or am I misreading it? I have also found that what some evangelicals consider mere witnessing comes across to me and even more so to many others as inappropriate, or at least unwanted evangelizing or proselytizing. In a rigid hierarchy like the military where superior rank is based on when your papers were signed giving you your rank, this can be a serious problem in a practical way. I think the problem did not arise from one or two or even a dozen cadets meeting together, publicizing meetings, or one-on-one witnessing. It arose, as I understand it, from creating a pervasive culture in which the non-evangelical students were harassed and marginalized from officers from the top (or near the top) down. It happened when the majority started to oppress the minority. Steve___ 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
Steve is right that this is acase involving the creation of an intolerantatmosphere where there was a pervasive atmosphere skewed towardevangelicals engaging in proselytizing. Conversations are one thing, but an institutinally-sanctioned, pervasive regime where those who are not evangelicals feel set upon ordisenfranchised is deeply troubling in the military, which should be a gathering of any and all believers unitedin defending the U.S. On a related note, I spoke to someone whose brother just came back from Iraq. He is an atheist and he was ordered to attend religious services on a weekly basis at a minimum. He found it extremely coercive, but there was no sense among his commanding officers that there was any harm caused by forcing him to participate in religious activities. Marci-Original Message-From: Brad M Pardee [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSent: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:46:54 -0500Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance Steve, It may be that I've been fortunate in the people I've had around me. I was raised Presbyterian, and I don't remember hearing anything said there about Jews at all unless we were talking about Old Testament history and things like that. As an evangelical, I've heard that there were individuals, some of whom were Roman and some of whom were Jewish, who brought about the death of Christ, and that only those specific individuals could be held accountable for those actions. I've heard that the Holocaust was about Satan's unending hatred for the people with whom God had made a covenant going back to Abraham. As I said, though, it may be that I've simply been fortunate in the people I've had around me. As far as the second item goes, nobody should be harassed or marginalized. The action being requested by the plainti! ff, though, seems to go beyond righting those wrongs. While the hierarachy of the military certainly present different challenges in this matter than those of us in civillian life face, there should be a way to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We should be able to find a way, within the constraints of the military hierarchy, to permit conversations that are freely entered into by all parties without jeopardizing the rights of those who do not wish to discuss the subject from being made unwilling participants. Brad Steven Jamar wrote: I'm surprised that you've never heard any evangelical state the Holocaust was revenge for killing Jesus or refer to Jews as Christ killers. I have heard such from Catholics, traditional denominational Christians, and evangelical Christians. At one time it was official Catholic church doctrine, if I recall my religious histo! ry correctly, and from there the idea continued on even long after the doctrine was abandoned. The second item recognizes voluntary/involuntary conversation distinction you are making -- or am I misreading it? I have also found that what some evangelicals consider mere witnessing comes across to me and even more so to many others as inappropriate, or at least unwanted evangelizing or proselytizing. In a rigid hierarchy like the military where superior rank is based on when your papers were signed giving you your rank, this can be a serious problem in a practical way. I think the problem did not arise from one or two or even a dozen cadets meeting together, publicizing meetings, or one-on-one witnessing. It arose, as I understand it, from creating a pervasive culture in which the non-evangelical students were harassed and marginalized from officers from the top (or near the top) down. It happened when the majority started to oppress the m! inority. Steve ___ 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: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Marci, My concern is about this case is that the plaintiff's request seems to go beyond addressing the problem that is described. It's one thing to prohibit attempts to involuntarily convert [and] pressure the cadets, and those should be prohibited. A prohibition on attempts to exhort or persuade without a clear statement that conversations among willing participants are permitted would, however, swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. We shouldn't correct one wrong by creating another. As far as the atheist being ordered to attend religious services is concerned, that makes no sense to me. I can't fathom a line of reasoning that would justify it. Even if the commanding officers were trying to evangelize soldiers such as the one you describe (which would clearly be a first amendment violation if the attendance was ordered), it would be foolish from a strictly practical standpoint. You aren't going to persuade anybody with an argument you force them to listen to against their will. All you do is give them good reason to be resentful. Brad Marci wrote: Steve is right that this is a case involving the creation of an intolerant atmosphere where there was a pervasive atmosphere skewed toward evangelicals engaging in proselytizing. Conversations are one thing, but an institutinally-sanctioned, pervasive regime where those who are not evangelicals feel set upon or disenfranchised is deeply troubling in the military, which should be a gathering of any and all believers united in defending the U.S. On a related note, I spoke to someone whose brother just came back from Iraq. He is an atheist and he was ordered to attend religious services on a weekly basis at a minimum. He found it extremely coercive, but there was no sense among his commanding officers that there was any harm caused by forcing him to participate in religious activities. Marci ___ 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 completely agree on the legal aspects of the forced attendance, but I also think that this anecdote gives us some strong insight into the culture of the military on issues of religion. I would think it has some bearing on what is happening at the military academies. Marci In a message dated 10/6/2005 6:30:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As far as the atheist being ordered to attend religious services is concerned, that makes no sense to me. I can't fathom a line of reasoning that would justify it. Even if the commanding officers were trying to evangelize soldiers such as the one you describe (which would clearly be a first amendment violation if the attendance was ordered), it would be foolish from a strictly practical standpoint. You aren't going to persuade anybody with an argument you force them to listen to against their will. All you do is give them good reason to be resentful. Brad ___ 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
Brad, Would you agree that in a situation where one individual is in a position of authority over another that attempts to exhort or persuade are impermissible. As a law professor at a public university, I would never initiate a conversation with one of my students in an attempt to exhort or persuade him to change his religious beliefs. In the military, the situation is much more coercive. An allegedly willing subordinate who is exhorted to adopt the religious beliefs of a superior officer may not have felt free to be unwilling to hear the officers exhortations. Alan Brownstein UC Davis From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:30 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance Marci, My concern is about this case is that the plaintiff's request seems to go beyond addressing the problem that is described. It's one thing to prohibit attempts to involuntarily convert [and] pressure the cadets, and those should be prohibited. A prohibition on attempts to exhort or persuade without a clear statement that conversations among willing participants are permitted would, however, swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. We shouldn't correct one wrong by creating another. As far as the atheist being ordered to attend religious services is concerned, that makes no sense to me. I can't fathom a line of reasoning that would justify it. Even if the commanding officers were trying to evangelize soldiers such as the one you describe (which would clearly be a first amendment violation if the attendance was ordered), it would be foolish from a strictly practical standpoint. You aren't going to persuade anybody with an argument you force them to listen to against their will. All you do is give them good reason to be resentful. Brad Marci wrote: Steve is right that this is a case involving the creation of an intolerant atmosphere where there was a pervasive atmosphere skewed toward evangelicals engaging in proselytizing. Conversations are one thing, but an institutinally-sanctioned, pervasive regime where those who are not evangelicals feel set upon or disenfranchised is deeply troubling in the military, which should be a gathering of any and all believers united in defending the U.S. On a related note, I spoke to someone whose brother just came back from Iraq. He is an atheist and he was ordered to attend religious services on a weekly basis at a minimum. He found it extremely coercive, but there was no sense among his commanding officers that there was any harm caused by forcing him to participate in religious activities. Marci ___ 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
Alan, I think it would all depend on the nature of the relationship. I can look to my own experience on this. While in high school, it was a teacher who first shared the gospel with me. Some would consider that impermissable. In hindsight, though, I can say without question that, when my parents divorced six months later, I would have undoubtedly killed myself, so I would say that she saved my life. I had a friendship with her, though, that made such a conversation permissible. There were other teachers with whom I was not friends, and in those cases, the conversation would not have been permissible. I think that's the problem with one-size-fits-all solutions which fail to take into account the differing nature of relationships between different persons. Another significant point is that you say you would never initiate a conversation. Suppose, however, in the course of casual conversation, the subject comes up, initiated by the student. Would you still consider it impermissible? Finally, I don't think it should be that difficult to lay down guidlines to ensure that any subordinate is free to be as willing or unwilling as they wish to be. Suppose, as a hypothetical, that an officer makes it clear that he thinks a real man goes into town on weekend liberty to go drinking and chasing women. Would the subordinate have a claim if he didn't feel free to be unwilling to hear the officer's exhortations? If not, then why would the subordinate have a claim when the subject is religion? If so, then that speaks poorly about the internal strength of the people in our military forces. Brad Alan Brownstein wrote: Brad, Would you agree that in a situation where one individual is in a position of authority over another that attempts to exhort or persuade are impermissible. As a law professor at a public university, I would never initiate a conversation with one of my students in an attempt to exhort or persuade him to change his religious beliefs. In the military, the situation is much more coercive. An allegedly willing subordinate who is exhorted to adopt the religious beliefs of a superior officer may not have felt free to be unwilling to hear the officers exhortations. Alan Brownstein UC Davis ___ 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.
