I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of
argument -- that the only point of concern is to "protect the chaplain"--
as opposed to serve the religious needs and interest of our armed
forces.
Not only are these interpretations of history and
law enormously biased and inaccurate, they
Disclaimer: Any views expressed below are my own and
do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy
or the Navy Chaplain Corps.
Professor Guinn has called attention to something I've
been wondering about since I first saw this particularline of argument
made
Locke v. Davey does not announce a requirement of anti-religious
motive, as I show in a sentence-by-sentence parsing of the opinion in the
Harvard Law Review in 2004. It is primarily a burden opinion: refusal to fund
does not impose a significant burden, which was indeed a longstanding Rehnquist
Of course, selfishness is an abhorrent sinmuch to be despisedplease forgive me if anyone supposes my "zeal" is based in selfishnessI shall certainly self-examine and repent if sobut I only ask,was it selfish or unselfish,when I :1) Gave up an award-winningAir Force career and
Sounds very much like someone tooting his own horn? Is excessive pride
also a sin?
One can only wonder how G-d will respond to someone who brags about his
work to make outcasts of gay members of the human family. Perhaps the
Chaplain should try marching a mile or two in the boot of a gay
AMEN
Daniel G. Gibbens, CDR, USNR-R
Regents Professor of Law Emeritus
University of Oklahoma
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:33 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
