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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I do not understan why Mr. Klingenschmitt thnks "all chaplains are evangelists."
Many Rabbis for example, are not trying to convince people of their point
of view, they simply lead prayers; this is true for other faiths as well.
Furthermore, in the military (so my chaplain friends tell me);
In a message dated 10/8/2005 11:45:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In any
event,the chaplain can clearly be told that there are limits to his/her
evangelism with regard to those who are not voluntary attenders of what might
be called "regular" services, just
Sincerely, thanks for your questions, Mr. Finkelman.
1) You ask how this Protestant minister could administer last rites to a dying Catholic Sailor. The answer is simple...we're both Christian, and I'd administer Christian rites. Although I'm an Evangelical Episcopal priest, I was raised,
I don't actually think I was asking these as questions; rather, I am suggesting
that you don't, or certainly should not, be evangelizing when you administer
to non-Episcopalians. that is my point.
I htink there is a difference between trying tgo convert you to believe something
-- which is
. Now as law
professors,as teachers of our future leaders,will you actually teach
your students thatgovernment should agree with them,and side with
Mr. Weinstein and Yale Divinity, and enter the Protestant Chapel to silence the
chaplain's speechwith military policemen? Sandy? Paul?
Chip?
Sandy: I have only just now joined this discussion and see it mostly as
a theoreitcal problem. I would like to know a whole lot more about the invasion
of the chapel, but for starters, I would assume that the Army owns the chapel,
not the Priest? Does that affect things? I think it might.
lto:[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 kn
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
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
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 starter
Good questions Alan, and thanks for narrowing the scope of this inquiry...let's probe the outer limits, as you suggest.
Rigdon v. Perry seems to be the defining case law, and I can live with the federal judge's statement, that short of speech which urges 1) Treason, 2) Violence, 3) Rebellion,
The military cannot regulate the content of worship services,even on base. There's no such thing as an "interdenominational" service, unless the chaplain agrees to conduct one. And ultimately, it's not the judge's perrogative, that belongs to Congress, who already legislated US Code Title 10
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
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
: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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
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
:[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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
50 matches
Mail list logo
