RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-03 Thread Marc Stern








I think Martys Point 2 is slightly
overbroad. Chaplains do not have the right to pray as they wish when carrying
out duties outside the conduct of regular voluntary worship services. I doubt
that anyone believes that the military can tell a rabbi or priest or pastor what
is an acceptable regular worship service (i.e. a Latin or vernacular mass. In the
entire dispute over the Air Force guidelines, no one has contended- or at least
no one serious has contended that the ban on praying in Jesus name,
for example, applies to weekly services.

Marc Stern









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006
5:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Victory for Military
Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name







Chaplain Klingenschmitt:











With all due respect, this is simple nonsense.











1. Section 6031 does not say that military chaplains
may pray in Jesus's name, and if it did authorize such prayers in
the chaplains' official capacities, it would almost certainly violate the
Establishment Clause in that respect.











2. For reasons we've discussed at great length before,
chaplains have no Free Exercise rights to pray in the manner of their choosing when they are acting in their
official capacities.











3. Citing Lee v. Weisman, and only Lee v. Weisman,
for the proposition that the state must permit a state employee
to give a sectarian prayer in a public capacity, is just about the most absurd
reading of a case that I've ever seen.







- Original Message - 





From: Gordon
James Klingenschmitt 





To: Law
 Religion issues for Law Academics 





Sent: Saturday,
September 30, 2006 5:25 PM





Subject: Re: Victory for
Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name











Ah yes, Marty, the House receded, but so did these (novel,
invasive)Feb 2006 policies recede into oblivion,allowing the real
power of the oldlaw (enshrined since 1860) to befully
restored: 











THE LAW, GENTLEMEN: US CODE TITLE 10 SECTION 6031: 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.











And the U.S.Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation,
that allowing freedom in prayer content would somehow violate the
establishment clause, in fact they ruled the opposite:











1991 Lee vs. Weisman (Majority Decision):









The government may not establish an
official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a
religion with more specific creeds...The State's role did not end with the
decision to include a prayer and with the choice of clergyman. Principal Lee
provided Rabbi Gutterman with a copy of the Guidelines for Civic
Occasions and advised him that his prayers should be nonsectarian.
Through these means, the principal directed and controlled the content of the
prayers. Even if the only sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the
rabbi would not be invited back, we think no religious representative who
valued his or her continued reputation and effectiveness in the community would
incur the State's displeasure in

this regard. It is a cornerstone
principle of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of the
business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the
American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by
government, Engel v. Vitale, (1962), and that is what the school officials
attempted to do.









So Marty is technically wrong on both counts:





1) There is a long-standinglaw to let military chaplains pray in
Jesus name, and





2) Government censorship ofanyone's prayer contentviolates
the First Amendment (unless you disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court).











Smile guys...liberty is prevailing here! 





You still believe in freedom of speech, don't you? 











Chaplain Klingenschmitt







Marty Lederman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







That's actually rather amusing. The House -- which
passed a bill that would have prescribed that chaplains would have the
prerogative to pray according to the dictates of their
conscience -- actually receded inconference. That is to say,
the Senate conferees prevailed,
and therefore the law contains no such prescription.












But then the conferees purport to driect the
Secretary of the Air Force to rescind the recent policy. This is not a
direction of Congress, let alone a duly enacted law, and it has no
operative legal effect.











Besides which, for the chaplains in their official
capacities to engage in public prayer in Jesus's name would violate
the Establishment Clause, and thus could not be prescribed, even by
statute.











Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're
invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail. 







___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-02 Thread Brad Pardee

Paul Finkelman wrote:



Sounds very much like someone tooting his own horn?  Is excessive pride
also a sin?


Interestingly enough, it sounded like somebody who was accused of 
selfishness attempting to place his actions in context in order to defend 
the impugning of his character.



One can only wonder how G-d will respond to someone who brags about his
work to make outcasts of gay members of the human family.  Perhaps the
Chaplain should try marching a mile or two in the boot of a gay sailor
or soldier.


Again, where was the bragging?  If somebody calls the chaplain selfish, 
isn't he allowed to say, No, I don't believe I was being selfish.  Here's 
why.


Also, I didn't see a thing about trying to make anybody outcasts.  Are you 
suggesting that a person who believes that Scripture teaches that sexual 
intimacy is reserved for monogamous heterosexual marriage should simply keep 
their views to themselves?  Or is freedom of religion reserved for those who 
believe that God simply says, Be nice people and otherwise do whatever you 
want?



I am no expert on the chaplain's faith, but have spent a great deal of
my life studying religion and this is the first time I have ever heard a
Christian assert that praying  fomr the Book of Psalms compromised a
Christian's faith.


Praying from the Book of Psalms is not, in and of itself, compromising a 
person's faith.  Being required to pray ONLY from the Book of Psalms to the 
exclusion of every other prayer in the Bible, however, is another matter.


It sounds to me very much like the Navy has, in essence, said that a person 
can only be a chaplain if they act as if they don't actually believe 
anything.  That doesn't sound like what 200+ years worth of American 
fighting men and women were willing to die to defend.


Brad Pardee 


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.


Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-02 Thread Paul Finkelman
Brad Pardee writes:

It sounds to me very much like the Navy has, in essence, said that a
person 
can only be a chaplain if they act as if they don't actually believe 
anything.  That doesn't sound like what 200+ years worth of American 
fighting men and women were willing to die to defend.

There is a difference between belief and forcing soldiers and sailors to
listen to prayers that are offensive to them.  The Chaplain was free to
believe anything he wants; and to pray privately with whatever word or
language he choses; he was not free to impose his beliefs on others. 
That is also what freedom is about. 

 

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.


Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
 and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.


Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-02 Thread Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Having lost this debate onits intellectual merits, Mr. Finkelman resorts to personal attacks on my character.Yet I agree with him on one point,that pride is a terrible sin, so I shall here endeavor to humblypracticeProverbs 27:2: "Let another praise you,and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips" lest I appear to toot my own horn. 84% of the Sailors on my ship agreed, "the command chaplain cares for all denominations, regardless of faith or belief. 94% of Americans supported me during my hunger strike, and only 6% supported the Navy's position, in this poll:  http://persuade.tv/frenzy/WNDpoll.pdf85% of Americans supported my position on the issue of letting chaplains pray in Jesus name,
 in this poll:  http://persuade.tv/frenzy6/DecaturDaily17Sep06.pdf Ultimately, even public opinion is secondary to God's opinion, and if I have pleased Him then I am justified. Buthaving lost this NATIONAL debate, the anti-Jesus crowd was properly rebuked by the American public (who is decidedly pro-Jesus), and so the Navy and Air Force were ordered by Congress to respect public opinion (and the Constitution), sofreedom of religious _expression_was properly restored.I don't mind the personal insults by Mr.Guinn and Mr. Finkelman, (I've been insulted by better men), but theirlack of intellectual argumentappears very much as "sour grapes." Chaplain Klingenschmitt 
 Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Sounds very much like someone tooting his own horn? Is excessive pridealso a sin? One can only wonder how G-d will respond to someone who brags about hiswork to make outcasts of gay members of the human family. Perhaps theChaplain should try marching a mile or two in the boot of a gay sailoror soldier.I am no expert on the chaplain's faith, but have spent a great deal ofmy life studying religion and this is the first time I have ever heard aChristian assert that praying fomr the Book of Psalms compromised aChristian's faith.Paul FinkelmanPresident William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Lawand Public PolicyAlbany Law School80 New Scotland AvenueAlbany, New York 12208-3494518-445-3386
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
		Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the  all-new Yahoo! Mail.___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-02 Thread David E. Guinn

From: Brad Pardee [EMAIL PROTECTED]


It sounds to me very much like the Navy has, in essence, said that a 
person can only be a chaplain if they act as if they don't actually 
believe anything.  That doesn't sound like what 200+ years worth of 
American fighting men and women were willing to die to defend.


***

I don't think that 200+ years worth of Americans died in order to have a 
Navy Chaplain attempt to indoctrinate their fellow soldiers into the 
particular faith of that Chaplain.  Seeking to protect the religious freedom 
of all soldiers, and not just the priveledged few, hardly seems out of 
accord with American values.


I am not familiar with the military chaplancy, but I am familiar with 
hospital chaplains who work to serve the needs of all patients regardless of 
their faith position--including chaplains working in sectarian hospitals 
(most often Catholic).  They do not find it necessary to impose their 
beliefs on the patients they serve.  Why should the military be different --  
particularly when they are being paid by all citizens, not just their faith 
cohort?


If the issue is simply the religious freedom of the chaplain, then we can 
revert to the practices within hospitals that allow outside clergy to attend 
to the special religious demands of their co-religionists?


David 


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.


Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-02 Thread David E. Guinn



I hardly agree that he lost on the merits of the 
argument. I have yet to read any reasonable interpretation of law or 
history thatsupports yourposition.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Gordon 
  James Klingenschmitt 
  To: Paul Finkelman ; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
  Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:13 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Victory for Military 
  Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"
  
  Having lost this debate onits intellectual merits, Mr. Finkelman 
  resorts to personal attacks on my character.
  
  Yet I agree with him on one point,that pride is a terrible sin, so 
  I shall here endeavor to humblypracticeProverbs 27:2: "Let 
  another praise you,and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your 
  own lips" lest I appear to toot my own horn. 
  
  84% of the Sailors on my ship agreed, "the command chaplain cares for all 
  denominations, regardless of faith or belief. 
  
  94% of Americans supported me during my hunger strike, and only 6% 
  supported the Navy's position, in this poll:
  http://persuade.tv/frenzy/WNDpoll.pdf
  
  85% of Americans supported my position on the issue of letting chaplains 
  pray in Jesus name, in this poll:
  http://persuade.tv/frenzy6/DecaturDaily17Sep06.pdf 
  
  
  Ultimately, even public opinion is secondary to God's opinion, and if I 
  have pleased Him then I am justified. 
  
  Buthaving lost this NATIONAL debate, the anti-Jesus crowd was 
  properly rebuked by the American public (who is decidedly pro-Jesus), and so 
  the Navy and Air Force were ordered by Congress to respect public opinion (and 
  the Constitution), sofreedom of religious _expression_was properly 
  restored.
  
  I don't mind the personal insults by Mr.Guinn and Mr. Finkelman, 
  (I've been insulted by better men), but theirlack of intellectual 
  argumentappears very much as "sour grapes." 
  
  Chaplain Klingenschmitt
  
  
  Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  Sounds 
very much like someone tooting his own horn? Is excessive pridealso a 
sin? One can only wonder how G-d will respond to someone who brags 
about hiswork to make outcasts of gay members of the human family. 
Perhaps theChaplain should try marching a mile or two in the boot of a 
gay sailoror soldier.I am no expert on the chaplain's faith, but 
have spent a great deal ofmy life studying religion and this is the 
first time I have ever heard aChristian assert that praying fomr the 
Book of Psalms compromised aChristian's faith.Paul 
FinkelmanPresident William McKinley Distinguished Professor of 
Lawand Public PolicyAlbany Law School80 New Scotland 
AvenueAlbany, New York 12208-3494518-445-3386 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Everyone is raving about the all-new 
  Yahoo! Mail.
  
  

  ___To post, send 
  message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change 
  options, or get password, see 
  http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note 
  that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. 
  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
  read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
  messages to others.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-02 Thread Steven Jamar

On 10/2/06, Brad Pardee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



It sounds to me very much like the Navy has, in essence, said that a person
can only be a chaplain if they act as if they don't actually believe
anything.  That doesn't sound like what 200+ years worth of American
fighting men and women were willing to die to defend.

Brad Pardee



Let's back up this context a bit.

1.   Chaplains can privately pray to whomever they want and howsoever
they want, short of interfering with others legitimate activities.
2.  Chaplains can hold private services for adherents and pray
howsoever they want, including in the name of Jesus or Allah or
whomever or whatever.
3.  Chaplains can hold services open to anyone and pray howsoever they
want,including in the name of Jesus or Allah or whomever or whatever
so long as these services may be fairly characterized as voluntary.
4.  When Chaplains are doing official business in official settings or
in mandatory assemblies, then restrictions are placed on them.
5.  When Chaplains are in situations where being in uniform would
affect the perception that they are acting in an official capacity,
they need to act in accordance with some restrictions that do not
apply if they are doing the exact same conduct, but not in uniform.

Have I got this about right?

If so, it strikes me that religious freedom is doing quite well by
chaplains in the military -- with broader free exercise being granted
than would be constitutionally required.

Mr. Klingenschmitt's interpretation of Congress's actions seem
erroneous to me and his actions do seem to be more about grandstanding
than religious freedom, but he is certainly entitled to his take on
what religious freedom law should be, and within bounds, as to what it
is.  And I take him at his word that he is pursuing his agenda
motivated by a genuine (mis)understanding of what the law requires and
a genuine belief (mistaken by my lights) as to what it should require.

--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.


Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-01 Thread David E. Guinn



I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of 
argument -- that the only point of concern is to "protect the chaplain"-- 
as opposed to serve the religious needs and interest of our armed 
forces.

Not only are these interpretations of history and 
law enormously biased and inaccurate, they are offensive. If the 
chaplaincy's purpose is solely to promote Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sectarian 
faith than perhaps Madison was correct in arguing that Congress' decision to 
hire chaplains was wrong and should now be recended.

David

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Gordon 
  James Klingenschmitt 
  To: Law  Religion issues for Law 
  Academics 
  Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 8:16 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Victory for Military 
  Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"
  
  Excellent comment Professor Scarberry, 
  
  But now that the policy is rescinded, so is any distinction between 
  "public worship at divine services" and "public worship at command ceremonies" 
  and so the law (once again) protects the chaplain at all events whenever he 
  prays...prayer itself is restored as an act of "public worship" the same way 
  italways had been since 1860.
  
  The origins of the 1860 law were described recently by ournew 
  friend CDR Wildhack, who wrote in the Naval Law Review Vol 51 (2003): 
  
  
  "As in our day, questions about the manner and forms of 
  worship have also long been a part of the history of the Chaplain Corps. Early 
  regulations specified that the duties of chaplains included having to 'read' 
  prayers (53). In 1859, the Speaker of the House of Representatives asked the 
  Secretary of the Navy whether chaplains were required to 'read' prayers or 
  follow any particular forms or ceremony in leading worship, and if the Navy 
  had any evidence of a requirement that non-Episcopal chaplains had to follow 
  the Episcopal liturgy (54). In replying, the Secretary explained that he 
  was not aware that the instruction to 'read' had ever been construed to 
  require a literal reading from a particular prayer book, but rather as a 
  requirement that prayers be offered aloud without specifying they be read from 
  a book, written down by the chaplain beforehand to be read later, or offered 
  extemporaneously (55). To further reassure the Speaker and his colleagues in 
  Congress, the Secretary announced a new order officially interpreting the 
  requirement that prayers be 'read' to mean that prayers be 'offered,' thus 
  leaving the chaplain free to follow the dictates of his own religious 
  tradition.(56) Perhaps in response to such communication with Congress, new 
  Navy Regulations adopted in 1860 included this addition: "Every chaplain shall 
  be permitted to conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of 
  the church of which he may be a member."(57) No longer merely a regulation, 
  that language is now in force as part of the United States Code.(58)" 
  
  
  Thanks to CDR Wildhack for this insightBut it reveals 
  today'stragic ironythe Episcopal Book of Common Prayer was once seen 
  as 'mandatory' for all chaplains...but Congress (wisely) overcame that, to 
  allow non-Christian chaplains (i.e. first 3 Jewish chaplains appointed by Abe 
  Lincoln in 1860) total freedom to NOT the use Christian prayer book...and now 
  in 2006, the policy actually PROHIBITED using the Christian prayer 
  bookin publicthe pendulum swung too far...so now Congress has 
  (wisely) righted itself, to restorereligious diversity, allowing any 
  variety of prayers to be said,instead of punishing Christian prayers 
  while forcing Christian chaplains to pray Jewish prayers (i.e. theologically 
  sensitive prayers). 
  
  Chaplain Klingenschmitt
  "Scarberry, Mark" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  It 
seems there is a distinction between "Divine/Religious Services" and other 
"command functions." I don't suppose Marty is saying that a chaplain may not 
pray in Jesus' name during Divine/Relgious Services. Paragraph 6(c) does not 
require that Divine/Religious Services be non-sectarian but only that 
religious elements in other command functions be non-sectarian. If 
Divine/Religious Services were required to be nonsectarian then they 
couldn't be divine services for the chaplain's particular faith; note that 
the chaplains are required to "provide ministry to those of their own faith" 
which rules out nonsectarian requirements for such ministry whether or not 
that ministry occurs in a Divine/Religious Service. I suppose there could be 
a serious question whether a particular memorial service for a deceased 
sailor (the context, I believe of Chaplain Klingenschmitt's disagreement 
with the Navy) is a Divine/Religious Service or instead a different kind of 
remembrance of the sailor. Whether nonsectarian pra

RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-01 Thread W. A. Wildhack III




Disclaimer: Any views expressed below are my own and 
do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy 
or the Navy Chaplain Corps.
Professor Guinn has called attention to something I've 
been wondering about since I first saw this particularline of argument 
made in Chaplain Klingenschmitt's "War Against Christians" presentation 
(available on his website athttp://www.persuade.tv/frenzy2/WACspeech.ppt 
). In the quoted passage from my paper, I reported on questions asked of 
the Secretary of the Navy by the Speaker of the House in 1859 regarding whether 
there were any requirements for chaplains to literally *read* prayers, follow 
any partcular liturgy, or whether "non-Episcopal chaplains had to follow the 
Episcopal liturgy." I did not describe, nor do I recall finding, any 
evidence that official Navy policy at the time actually included such 
requirements. 

As quoted below, I did report that the Secretary 
explained in his reply to the Speaker that "he was not aware that the 
instruction to 'read' had ever been construed to require a literal reading from 
a particular prayer book . . . ." In other words, even if there had been a 
policy requiring "non-Episcopal chaplains . . . to follow the Episcopal 
liturgy," much less a mandatory requirement that prayers be read from the 
Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, the Secretary didn't know about it. Just 
to make sure there would be no misunderstanding in the future,he issued 
orders clarifying that there was no such policy and a chaplain could "conduct 
public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he may 
be a member." 


Even so, my article is cited in apparent support of the 
proposition that use of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer "was once seen as 
'mandatory' for all chaplains." I do not, however, think 
what I wrote supports that conclusion, and I do not recall finding support for 
it in any of the materials I reviewed or cited. Of course, other historical sources may have more information on 
this particular point, but I don't.

By the way, while the quoted passage from page 226 of 
my paper is reproduced accurately enough below, in context it is 
followedimmediately by these words beginning at the bottom of that 
page:

  While conducting worship has always been one of a 
  military chaplain's duties, protecting the rights of others to freely exercise 
  their faith also predates the Constitution and Bill of Rights. [FN59] The 
  earliest chaplains, like their modern-day counterparts, served a military 
  population representing a variety of faith groups or no faith at all. [FN60] 
  One author asserts that the "pattern for chaplain ministry to soldiers of 
  different religious backgrounds was set in the seventeenth century, from the 
  time the first militia units drilled at Jamestown, Plymouth, Boston and New 
  York." [FN61]
Very respectfully,

 Bill Wildhack

Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. 
District Court for the Middle District of FloridaMinister of Word and 
Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy 
Reserve 
P.S. For those who might be interested 
inseeingmore of my paper for the larger context of the quoted 
section and the content of the footnotes, the rest of the cite is: Navy 
Chaplains at the Crossroads: Navigating the Intersection of Free Speech, Free 
Exercise, Establishment, and Equal Protection,51 Naval L. Rev. 217 
(2005).


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. 
GuinnSent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:57 AMTo: Law  
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Victory for Military 
Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"

I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of 
argument -- that the only point of concern is to "protect the chaplain"-- 
as opposed to serve the religious needs and interest of our armed 
forces.

Not only are these interpretations of history and 
law enormously biased and inaccurate, they are offensive. If the 
chaplaincy's purpose is solely to promote Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sectarian 
faith than perhaps Madison was correct in arguing that Congress' decision to 
hire chaplains was wrong and should now be recended.

David


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon James 
KlingenschmittSent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:16 
PMTo: Law  Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 
RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"

Excellent comment Professor Scarberry, 

But now that the policy is rescinded, so is any distinction between "public 
worship at divine services" and "public worship at command ceremonies" and so 
the law (once again) protects the chaplain at all events whenever he 
prays...prayer itself is restored as an act of "public worship" the same way 
italways had been since 1860.


Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-01 Thread Gordon James Klingenschmitt
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 volunteered for a demotion in rank and apay-cut,just to become a Navy chaplain andhelp Sailors?2) LedSailors to feed the homeless every Friday, winning six awards for community service (including best in Navy)?3) Risked my own career by advocating (too strongly) for my Jewish Sailor to have Kosher meals? (Earningrebuke from headquarters, but praise from the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Welfare Board,read here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/ADLforKlingenschmitt.pdf)4) Fought for equal opportunity for Sailors of all diverse faiths to"take turns" and "share the prayer" with my Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic Sailors, allowing them to pray according to their tradition, while I'd only pray "in Jesus name" every fourth turn? (Which proposal my commander denied, telling me to pray "Jewish" prayersread here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixRTwoDeniedProposals.pdf) 5) Compromised my own faith by obediently praying only Jewish prayers (Old Testament Psalms) in public,foreight months before he stillfired me from my ship? 6) Risked my own career by opposing the Navy's
 "government-mandated church quotas" when senior chaplains forced scores of Sailors to attend a pro-homosexual church? (Read here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AParticleMattKelley30Apr05.pdf)7) Fought only to lose my own $1.8 million pension, my own reputation,myentire career, at criminal conviction, so that other chaplains AND SAILORS would receive the religious liberty I was denied? (Don't assume I'm going topersonally benefit from this...my family willsoon be evicted from military housing...I did this for others, not me.) 8) Quotedthe Bible in the chapel (optional-attendance) in a sermon designed to honor the Christian faith of my deceased Sailor (guaranteeing his right to a Christian burial), and pleading to save the souls of those who voluntarily attended, putting
 their own eternal salvation ahead of my own reputation, again risking my career? If I were truly selfish, I'dnever have risked my career for the benefit of others, I'd simply have watered-down my prayers and sermons, stopped fighting for religious liberty FOR ALL DIVERSE FAITHS, and gotten quickly promoted to senior chaplain... Chaplain Klingenschmitt"David E. Guinn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of argument -- that the only point of concern is to "protect the chaplain"-- as opposed to serve the religious needs and interest of our armed
 forces.Not only are these interpretations of history and law enormously biased and inaccurate, they are offensive. If the chaplaincy's purpose is solely to promote Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sectarian faith than perhaps Madison was correct in arguing that Congress' decision to hire chaplains was wrong and should now be recended.David 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-01 Thread Paul Finkelman
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 sailor
or soldier.

I am no expert on the chaplain's faith, but have spent a great deal of
my life studying religion and this is the first time I have ever heard a
Christian assert that praying  fomr the Book of Psalms compromised a
Christian's faith.

Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
 and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Gordon James Klingenschmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/02/06 12:11
AM 
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-winning Air Force career and volunteered for a
demotion in rank and a pay-cut, just to become a Navy chaplain and help
Sailors?
   
  2) Led Sailors to feed the homeless every Friday, winning six awards
for community service (including best in Navy)?
   
  3) Risked my own career by advocating (too strongly) for my Jewish
Sailor to have Kosher meals?  (Earning rebuke from headquarters, but
praise from the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Welfare Board, read
here:  http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/ADLforKlingenschmitt.pdf )
   
  4) Fought for equal opportunity for Sailors of all diverse faiths to
take turns and share the prayer with my Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic
Sailors, allowing them to pray according to their tradition, while I'd
only pray in Jesus name every fourth turn?  (Which proposal my
commander denied, telling me to pray Jewish prayersread here: 
http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixRTwoDeniedProposals.pdf )  
   
  5) Compromised my own faith by obediently praying only Jewish prayers
(Old Testament Psalms) in public, for eight months before he still fired
me from my ship?  
   
  6) Risked my own career by opposing the Navy's government-mandated
church quotas when senior chaplains forced scores of Sailors to attend
a pro-homosexual church?  (Read here: 
http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AParticleMattKelley30Apr05.pdf )
   
  7) Fought only to lose my own $1.8 million pension, my own reputation,
my entire career, at criminal conviction, so that other chaplains AND
SAILORS would receive the religious liberty I was denied?  (Don't assume
I'm going to personally benefit from this...my family will soon be
evicted from military housing...I did this for others, not me.)  
   
  8) Quoted the Bible in the chapel (optional-attendance) in a sermon
designed to honor the Christian faith of my deceased Sailor
(guaranteeing his right to a Christian burial), and pleading to save the
souls of those who voluntarily attended, putting their own eternal
salvation ahead of my own reputation, again risking my career?  
   
  If I were truly selfish, I'd never have risked my career for the
benefit of others, I'd simply have watered-down my prayers and sermons,
stopped fighting for religious liberty FOR ALL DIVERSE FAITHS, and
gotten quickly promoted to senior chaplain...  
   
  Chaplain Klingenschmitt
   
  

David E. Guinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of argument --
that the only point of concern is to protect the chaplain -- as
opposed to serve the religious needs and interest of our armed forces.
   
  Not only are these interpretations of history and law enormously
biased and inaccurate, they are offensive.  If the chaplaincy's purpose
is solely to promote Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sectarian faith than
perhaps Madison was correct in arguing that Congress' decision to hire
chaplains was wrong and should now be recended.
   
  David



-
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.


RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-10-01 Thread Gibbens, Daniel G.
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: Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

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 sailor
or soldier.

I am no expert on the chaplain's faith, but have spent a great deal of
my life studying religion and this is the first time I have ever heard a
Christian assert that praying from the Book of Psalms compromised a
Christian's faith.

Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
 and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Gordon James Klingenschmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/02/06 12:11
AM 
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-winning Air Force career and volunteered for a
demotion in rank and a pay-cut, just to become a Navy chaplain and help
Sailors?
   
  2) Led Sailors to feed the homeless every Friday, winning six awards
for community service (including best in Navy)?
   
  3) Risked my own career by advocating (too strongly) for my Jewish
Sailor to have Kosher meals?  (Earning rebuke from headquarters, but
praise from the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Welfare Board, read
here:  http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/ADLforKlingenschmitt.pdf )
   
  4) Fought for equal opportunity for Sailors of all diverse faiths to
take turns and share the prayer with my Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic
Sailors, allowing them to pray according to their tradition, while I'd
only pray in Jesus name every fourth turn?  (Which proposal my
commander denied, telling me to pray Jewish prayersread here: 
http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixRTwoDeniedProposals.pdf )  
   
  5) Compromised my own faith by obediently praying only Jewish prayers
(Old Testament Psalms) in public, for eight months before he still fired
me from my ship?  
   
  6) Risked my own career by opposing the Navy's government-mandated
church quotas when senior chaplains forced scores of Sailors to attend
a pro-homosexual church?  (Read here: 
http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AParticleMattKelley30Apr05.pdf )
   
  7) Fought only to lose my own $1.8 million pension, my own reputation,
my entire career, at criminal conviction, so that other chaplains AND
SAILORS would receive the religious liberty I was denied?  (Don't assume
I'm going to personally benefit from this...my family will soon be
evicted from military housing...I did this for others, not me.)  
   
  8) Quoted the Bible in the chapel (optional-attendance) in a sermon
designed to honor the Christian faith of my deceased Sailor
(guaranteeing his right to a Christian burial), and pleading to save the
souls of those who voluntarily attended, putting their own eternal
salvation ahead of my own reputation, again risking my career?  
   
  If I were truly selfish, I'd never have risked my career for the
benefit of others, I'd simply have watered-down my prayers and sermons,
stopped fighting for religious liberty FOR ALL DIVERSE FAITHS, and
gotten quickly promoted to senior chaplain...  
   
  Chaplain Klingenschmitt
   
  

David E. Guinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of argument --
that the only point of concern is to protect the chaplain -- as
opposed to serve the religious needs and interest of our armed forces.
   
  Not only are these interpretations of history and law enormously
biased and inaccurate, they are offensive.  If the chaplaincy's purpose
is solely to promote Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sectarian faith than
perhaps Madison was correct in arguing that Congress' decision to hire
chaplains was wrong and should now be recended.
   
  David



-
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Paul Finkelman
And a loss for all sailors and soldiers and member of the air force who
will feel excluded and shut out by people like Cap. Klingenschmitt and
his ilk who cannot understand the difference between their role as
officers in relationship to all members of the armed forces, and their
personal needs to proclaim their private religious beliefs.  Our
soldiers die to protect the latter right; they should not be subjected
to the oppression from military chaplains who insist on insulting and
antagonizing soldiers and sailors and causing conflict within the ranks.
 I am sure Capt. Kingenschmitt can draw great comfort in the thoughts
that his public prayers that offend many in the armed forces will in the
end undermine the ability of the armed forces to defend the nation.  

Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
 and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Gordon James Klingenschmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/30/06 3:14
PM 
Although Congress didn't pass new legislation, they did order SECNAV and
SECAF to rescind their recent (illegal) policies that required
non-sectarian prayersso the controversial Air Force Guidelines
(and Navy policy) are now TOTALLY RESCINDED, and military chaplains are
free to pray in Jesus name in any public setting.  
   
  The official Senate/House conference report language can be read here:
  http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy6/VictoryPolicyRescinded.pdf
   
  In Jesus name,
  Chaplain Klingenschmitt
  719-360-5132 cell
  www.persuade.tv  
  ---
   
  Press Release: VICTORY FOR MILITARY CHAPLAINS WHO PRAY IN JESUS NAME
   
  To:  National Desk
   
  Contact: Wanda Sanchez, 209-534-9921, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  or Chaplain Klingenschmitt, 719-360-5132, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   
  WASHINGTON DC, Sept. 30th /Christian Newswire/ -- 1) Navy and Air
Force Chaplains free to pray in Jesus name again. 2) Congress orders
Secretary of the Navy to rescind non-sectarian prayer policy. 3)
Congress orders Secretary of the Air Force to rescind guidelines
concerning the exercise of religion.
   
  After months of fighting the Navy's non-sectarian prayer policy,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt rejoiced on Friday as the U.S.
Congress took decisive action to overturn recent Navy and Air Force
policies that required non-sectarian prayers. 
   
  Praise be to God, military chaplains can once again pray freely in
Jesus name! Klingenschmitt declared victory. Although this fight may
have cost my career and my pension, it was well worth it, because now at
least other chaplains will be given the same religious liberty I was
denied.
   
  While Senator John Warner blocked language in the Defense
Authorization Act to let chaplains pray according to their conscience,
Congressman Duncan Hunter held firm and secured non-negotiable language
in the Conference Report forcing the Navy and Air Force to rescind
their non-sectarian prayer policies. 
   
  The official conference report language can be read here:
  http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy6/VictoryPolicyRescinded.pdf
   
  Janet Folger, Founder and President of Faith To Action, declared
victory as well: This conference report has teeth. It restores freedom
of speech to military chaplains, it restores the law since 1860 that
traditionally let chaplains pray in Jesus name in any setting, and it
serves a swift rebuke to Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter. He's
now been ordered by Congress to rescind his illegal policy, and stop his
censorship of chaplains' prayers. Winter is over, it's Summer again, for
chaplains who pray in Jesus name. 
   
  Klingenschmitt also believes this policy change will overturn his
recent court-martial conviction. When my court-martial judge ruled that
wearing my uniform during 'public worship' is only safe inside Sunday
chapel, but that 'worshipping in public' in uniform can be criminally
punished if you disobey orders, he based his ruling on SECNAVINST
1730.7C, that same illegal policy Congress just rescinded. That proves
my commander's original order was 'unlawful,' and my court-martial
verdict is now legally unenforceable. 
   
  Klingenschmitt has already written to Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld, read here:
  http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy6/LetterToSECDEF22Sep06.pdf 
   
  To schedule an interview with Chaplain Klingenschmitt or Janet Folger,
contact Wanda Sanchez, 209-534-9921, [EMAIL PROTECTED]   or
Chaplain Klingenschmitt, 719-360-5132, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



-
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com.  Check it out. 
___
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 

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Marty Lederman



That's actually rather amusing. The House -- 
which passed a bill that would have prescribed that chaplains would have the 
"prerogative" to pray "according to the dictates of their conscience" -- 
actually receded inconference. That is to say, the Senate 
conferees prevailed, and therefore the law contains no such 
prescription. 

But then the conferees purport to 
"driect" the Secretary of the Air Force to rescind the recent 
policy. This is not a "direction" of Congress, let alone a duly enacted 
law, and it has no operative legal effect.

Besides which, for the chaplains in their official 
capacities to engage in public prayer "in Jesus's name" would violate the 
Establishment Clause, and thus could not be "prescribed," even by 
statute.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Gordon 
  James Klingenschmitt 
  To: UCLA Law Class 
  Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:14 
  PM
  Subject: Victory for Military Chaplains 
  Who Pray "In Jesus Name"
  
  AlthoughCongress didn't pass new legislation,they did order 
  SECNAV and SECAF to rescind their recent (illegal) policies that required 
  "non-sectarian" prayersso the controversial Air Force Guidelines (and Navy 
  policy) are now TOTALLY RESCINDED, and military chaplains are free to pray "in 
  Jesus name" in any public setting. 
  
  The official Senate/House conference report language can be read 
  here:
  http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy6/VictoryPolicyRescinded.pdf
  
  In Jesus name,
  Chaplain Klingenschmitt
  719-360-5132 cell
  www.persuade.tv 
  ---
  
  Press Release: VICTORY FOR MILITARY CHAPLAINS WHO PRAY "IN JESUS 
  NAME"
  
  To: National Desk
  
  Contact: Wanda Sanchez, 209-534-9921, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  or Chaplain Klingenschmitt, 719-360-5132, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  WASHINGTON DC, Sept. 30th /Christian 
  Newswire/ -- 1) Navy and Air Force Chaplains free to 
  pray "in Jesus name" again. 2) Congress orders Secretary of the Navy to 
  rescind "non-sectarian" prayer policy. 3) Congress orders Secretary of the Air 
  Force to rescind "guidelines concerning the exercise of 
religion."
  
  After months of fighting the Navy’s "non-sectarian" prayer policy, 
  Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt rejoiced on Friday as the U.S. Congress 
  took decisive action to overturn recent Navy and Air Force policies that 
  required "non-sectarian" prayers. 
  
  "Praise be to God, military chaplains can once again pray freely in Jesus 
  name!" Klingenschmitt declared victory. "Although this fight may have cost my 
  career and my pension, it was well worth it, because now at least other 
  chaplains will be given the same religious liberty I was denied."
  
  While Senator John Warner blocked language in the Defense Authorization 
  Act to let chaplains pray according to their conscience, Congressman Duncan 
  Hunter held firm and secured non-negotiable language in the "Conference 
  Report" forcing the Navy and Air Force to rescind their "non-sectarian" prayer 
  policies. 
  
  The official conference report language can be read here:
  http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy6/VictoryPolicyRescinded.pdf
  
  Janet Folger, Founder and President of Faith To Action, declared victory 
  as well: "This conference report has teeth. It restores freedom of speech to 
  military chaplains, it restores the law since 1860 that traditionally let 
  chaplains pray in Jesus name in any setting, and it serves a swift rebuke to 
  Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter. He’s now been ordered by Congress to 
  rescind his illegal policy, and stop his censorship of chaplains’ prayers. 
  Winter is over, it’s Summer again, for chaplains who pray in Jesus name." 
  
  
  Klingenschmitt also believes this policy change will overturn his recent 
  court-martial conviction. "When my court-martial judge ruled that wearing my 
  uniform during ‘public worship’ is only safe inside Sunday chapel, but that 
  ‘worshipping in public’ in uniform can be criminally punished if you disobey 
  orders, he based his ruling on SECNAVINST 1730.7C, that same illegal policy 
  Congress just rescinded. That proves my commander’s original order was 
  ‘unlawful,’ and my court-martial verdict is now legally unenforceable." 
  
  Klingenschmitt has already written to Secretary of Defense Donald H. 
  Rumsfeld, read here:
  http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy6/LetterToSECDEF22Sep06.pdf 
  
  
  To schedule an interview with Chaplain Klingenschmitt or Janet Folger, 
  contact Wanda Sanchez, 209-534-9921, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  or Chaplain Klingenschmitt, 719-360-5132, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it 
  out. 
  
  

  ___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 

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Ah yes, Marty, the House receded, but so did these (novel, invasive)Feb 2006 policies recede into oblivion,allowing the real power of the oldlaw (enshrined since 1860) to befully restored: THE LAW, GENTLEMEN: US CODE TITLE 10 SECTION 6031: "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."And the U.S.Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation, that allowing "freedom" in prayer content would somehow violate the establishment clause, in fact they ruled the opposite:1991 Lee vs. Weisman (Majority Decision):"The government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds...The State's role did
 not end with the decision to include a prayer and with the choice of clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi Gutterman with a copy of the "Guidelines for Civic Occasions" and advised him that his prayers should be nonsectarian. Through these means, the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the only sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi would not be invited back, we think no religious representative who valued his or her continued reputation and effectiveness in the community would incur the State's displeasure in  this regard. It is a cornerstone principle of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government, Engel v. Vitale, (1962), and that is what the school officials attempted to do."So Marty is technically wrong on both counts:  1) There is a long-standinglaw to let military chaplains pray in Jesus name, and  2) Government censorship ofanyone's prayer contentviolates the First Amendment (unless you disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court).Smile guys...liberty is prevailing here!   You still believe in freedom of speech, don't you? Chaplain Klingenschmitt  Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  That's actually rather amusing. The House -- which passed a bill that would have prescribed that chaplains would have the
 "prerogative" to pray "according to the dictates of their conscience" -- actually receded inconference. That is to say, the Senate conferees prevailed, and therefore the law contains no such prescription. But then the conferees purport to "driect" the Secretary of the Air Force to rescind the recent policy. This is not a "direction" of Congress, let alone a duly enacted law, and it has no operative legal effect.Besides which, for the chaplains in their official capacities to engage in public prayer "in Jesus's name" would violate the Establishment Clause, and thus could not be "prescribed," even by statute. 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Marty Lederman



Chaplain Klingenschmitt:

With all due respect, this is simple 
nonsense.

1. Section 6031 does not say that military 
chaplains may pray "in Jesus's name," and if it did authorize such 
prayers in the chaplains' official capacities, it would almost certainly violate 
the Establishment Clause in that respect.

2. For reasons we've discussed at great 
length before, chaplains have no Free Exercise rights to pray in the manner of 
their choosing when they are acting in their official 
capacities.

3. Citing Lee v. Weisman, and only 
Lee v. Weisman, for the proposition that the state must permit 
a state employee to give a sectarian prayer in a public capacity, is just about 
the most absurd "reading" of a case that I've ever 
seen.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Gordon 
  James Klingenschmitt 
  To: Law  Religion issues for Law 
  Academics 
  Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:25 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Victory for Military 
  Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"
  
  Ah yes, Marty, the House receded, but so did these (novel, 
  invasive)Feb 2006 policies recede into oblivion,allowing the real 
  power of the oldlaw (enshrined since 1860) to befully 
  restored: 
  
  THE LAW, GENTLEMEN: US CODE TITLE 10 SECTION 6031: "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."
  
  And the U.S.Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation, that 
  allowing "freedom" in prayer content would somehow violate the establishment 
  clause, in fact they ruled the opposite:
  
  1991 Lee vs. Weisman (Majority Decision):
  
  "The government may not establish an official or civic 
  religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more 
  specific creeds...The State's role did not end with the decision to include a 
  prayer and with the choice of clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi 
  Gutterman with a copy of the "Guidelines for Civic Occasions" and advised him 
  that his prayers should be nonsectarian. Through these means, the principal 
  directed and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the only sanction 
  for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi would not be invited back, 
  we think no religious representative who valued his or her continued 
  reputation and effectiveness in the community would incur the State's 
  displeasure in
  this regard. It is a cornerstone principle of our 
  Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of the business of 
  government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to 
  recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government, Engel v. 
  Vitale, (1962), and that is what the school officials attempted to 
  do."
  
  So Marty is technically wrong on both counts:
  1) There is a long-standinglaw to let military chaplains pray in 
  Jesus name, and
  2) Government censorship ofanyone's prayer contentviolates 
  the First Amendment (unless you disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court).
  
  Smile guys...liberty is prevailing here! 
  You still believe in freedom of speech, don't you? 
  
  Chaplain Klingenschmitt
  Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  



That's actually rather amusing. The House 
-- which passed a bill that would have prescribed that chaplains would have 
the "prerogative" to pray "according to the dictates of their conscience" -- 
actually receded inconference. That is to say, the 
Senate conferees prevailed, and therefore the law 
contains no such prescription. 

But then the conferees purport to 
"driect" the Secretary of the Air Force to rescind the recent 
policy. This is not a "direction" of Congress, let alone a duly 
enacted law, and it has no operative legal effect.

Besides which, for the chaplains in their 
official capacities to engage in public prayer "in Jesus's name" would 
violate the Establishment Clause, and thus could not be "prescribed," even 
by statute.
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Get on board. You're 
  invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
  
  

  ___To post, send 
  message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change 
  options, or get password, see 
  http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note 
  that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. 
  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
  read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
  messages to others.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

P

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Marty Lederman



I decided to take a quick look over at section 
6031. Subsection (a), which Chaplain Klingenschmitt quotes, does not 
provide that chaplains may "pray in Jesus's name" as part of their public 
services. It's much more modest, and not very 
objectionable.Subsections (b) and (c), on the otherhand, 
areunconstitutional relics:

  (b) The commanders of vessels and naval 
  activities to which chaplains are attached shall cause divine 
  service to be performed on Sunday, whenever the weather and other 
  circumstances allow it to be done; and it is earnestly recommended to 
  all officers, seamen, and others in the naval service diligently to attend at 
  every performance of the worship of Almighty 
  God.(c) All persons in the Navy and in the Marine 
  Corps are enjoined to behave themselves in a reverent and 
  becoming manner during divine 
  service.
So I doubt the government will be invoking the 
authority of section 6031 anytime soon.

Oh, and by the way, 6031 isn't much help to 
Chaplain Klingenschmitt for another reason, too: It's limited to the Navy 
and Marines. The analogous Air Force statute, 10 USC 8547, much more 
"appropriately"provides that "[e]ach chaplain shall, when practicable, hold 
appropriate religious services at least once on each Sunday for 
the command to which he is assigned, and shall perform appropriate 
religious burial services for members of the Air Force who die while in 
that command."

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Marty Lederman 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Law 
   Religion issues for Law Academics 
  Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:50 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Victory for Military 
  Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"
  
  Chaplain Klingenschmitt:
  
  With all due respect, this is simple 
  nonsense.
  
  1. Section 6031 does not say that military 
  chaplains may pray "in Jesus's name," and if it did authorize such 
  prayers in the chaplains' official capacities, it would almost certainly 
  violate the Establishment Clause in that respect.
  
  2. For reasons we've discussed at great 
  length before, chaplains have no Free Exercise rights to pray in the manner of 
  their choosing when they are acting in their official 
  capacities.
  
  3. Citing Lee v. Weisman, and only 
  Lee v. Weisman, for the proposition that the state must 
  permit a state employee to give a sectarian prayer in a public capacity, is 
  just about the most absurd "reading" of a case that I've ever 
  seen.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Gordon 
James Klingenschmitt 
To: Law  Religion issues for Law 
Academics 
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:25 
    PM
    Subject: Re: Victory for Military 
Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"

Ah yes, Marty, the House receded, but so did these (novel, 
invasive)Feb 2006 policies recede into oblivion,allowing the 
real power of the oldlaw (enshrined since 1860) to befully 
restored: 

THE LAW, GENTLEMEN: US CODE TITLE 10 SECTION 6031: "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."

And the U.S.Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation, 
that allowing "freedom" in prayer content would somehow violate the 
establishment clause, in fact they ruled the opposite:

1991 Lee vs. Weisman (Majority Decision):

"The government may not establish an official or civic 
religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more 
specific creeds...The State's role did not end with the decision to include 
a prayer and with the choice of clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi 
Gutterman with a copy of the "Guidelines for Civic Occasions" and advised 
him that his prayers should be nonsectarian. Through these means, the 
principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the 
only sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi would not be 
invited back, we think no religious representative who valued his or her 
continued reputation and effectiveness in the community would incur the 
State's displeasure in
this regard. It is a cornerstone principle of our 
Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of the business of 
government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people 
to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government, Engel 
v. Vitale, (1962), and that is what the school officials attempted to 
do."

So Marty is technically wrong on both counts:
1) There is a long-standinglaw to let military chaplains pray in 
Jesus name, and
2) Government censorship ofanyone's prayer contentviolates 
the First Amendment (unless you disagree with the U.S. Supreme Co

RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread W. A. Wildhack III



Disclaimer: Any views expressed below are my 
own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Department of 
the Navy or the Navy Chaplain Corps.

Professors,

If the agreement to remove the "Military Chaplains 
Prayer Law" from the National Defense Authorization Act resulted somehow in 
language being inserted that would have the effect of rescinding the cited 
instructions and reinstatingearlier directives --- and I did see the note asserting that the action 
has no operative legal effect --- far more may be rescinded than just the 
language described as limiting prayer. I am not familiar with Air 
Force Instructions, but rescinding the Navy's19-page instruction and reinstating the earlier, 4-page instruction --- 
in addition to rescinding the sectionapparently at issue ---may 
also throw the following other 
provisions of thenewer 
instruction into 
question:

  
  the position of Deputy Chief of Chaplains for Reserve 
  Affairs
  
  express language requiring chaplains to "strive to 
  avoid the establishment of religion to ensure that free exercise rights are 
  protected for all authorized personnel" and to "provide ministry to those of 
  their own faith, facilitate ministry to those of other faiths, and care for 
  all service members."
  
  a requirement for chaplains to "respect the rights of 
  others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no 
  beliefs."
  
  a prohibition against chaplains obtaining and wearing 
  weapons or warfare qualifications
  
  an express prohibition against compelling chaplains 
  "to participate in religious activities inconsistent with their beliefls" 
  (suggesting, perhaps, that they can be so compelled?)
  
  a 3 1/2 page Department of the Navy policy on 
  confidentiality ofcommunications made to chaplains and religious program 
  specialists, including broad new protections for servicemembers and chaplains 
  that exceed even the rules on privileged communications in the 
  UCMJ
  
  a 6 1/2 page Department of the Navy policy on 
  accommodation of religious practices within the Navy apparently designed to 
  protect the rights of both chaplains and other 
  servicemembers.
For your convenience and some context, since my guess 
is that few have had the time to review the text of SECNAVINST 1730.7C, the key 
provisions at issue in all this appear to be inparagraphs 5.d. and 
6.of the instruction. Paragraph 5.d. includes the following 
provisions (among others):

  (2) As a condition of appointment, every [Religious 
  Ministry Professional (RMP)] must be willing to function in a pluralistic 
  environment in the military, where diverse religious traditions exist 
  side-by-side with tolerance and respect. Every RMP must be willing to support 
  directly and indirectly the free exercise of religion by all military members 
  of the DON, their family members, and other, persons authorized to be served, 
  in cooperation with other chaplains and RMPs. Chaplains are trained to 
  minister within the specialized demands of the military environment without 
  compromising the tenets of their own religious tradition.
  
  (3) In providing religious ministry, chaplains shall 
  strive to avoid the establishment of religion to ensure that free exercise 
  rights are protected for all authorized personnel.
  
  (4) Chaplains will provide ministry to those of their 
  own faith, facilitate ministry to those of other faiths, and care for all 
  service members, including those who claim no religious faith. Chaplains shall 
  respect the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the 
  right to hold no beliefs.
Paragraph 6 includes the following provisions among 
others:

  b. Chaplains will not be compelled to participate in 
  religious activities inconsistent with their beliefs. 
  
  c. Commanders retain the responsibility to provide 
  guidance for all command functions. In planning command functions, commanders 
  shall determine whether a religious element is appropriate. In considering the 
  appropriateness for including a religious element, commanders, with 
  appropriate advice from a chaplain, should assess the setting and context of 
  the function, the diversity of faith that may be represented among the 
  participants; and whether the function is mandatory for all hands. Other than 
  Divine/Religious Services, religious elements for a command function, absent 
  extraordinary circumstances, should be non-sectarian in nature. Neither the 
  participation of a chaplain, nor the inclusion of a religious element, in and 
  of themselves, renders a command function a Divine Service or, public worship. 
  Once a commander determines a religious element is appropriate, the chaplain 
  may choose to participate based on his or her faith constraints. If the 
  chaplain chooses not to participate, he or she may do so with no adverse 
  consequences. Anyone accepting a commander's invitation to provide religious 

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Perhaps Marty's right about one thing...our modern "enlightened" reading of the Constitution has (sadly) evolved quite a distance from when the founding fathers wrote that beloved document. Here is theorigin ofthatportion of10 USC 6031 (which Marty quoted, but hated) as firstwritten by our Founding Fathers (who knew the Constitution's meaning better than we do, let's admit): One of the first acts of Congress in June, 1775 was to pass Articles of War.There were only 12 of them. Article 2 was basically "Go to church and treat it with respect."Art. II. It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend Divine Service; and all officers and soldiers who shall behave indecently or irreverently at any place of
 Divine Worship, shall, if commissioned officers, be brought before a court-martial. there to be publicly and severely reprimanded by the President; if non-commissioned officers or soldiers, every person so offending, shall, for his first offence, forfeit One Sixth of a Dollar, to be deducted out of his next pay; for the second offence, he shall not only forfeit a like sum, but be confined for twenty-four hours, and for every like offence, shall suffer and pay in like manner; which money so forfeited, shall be applied to the use of the sick soldiers of the troop or company to which the offender belongs.  How far then, Marty, has our nation devolved into anti-Christian decadence, when instead of court-martialing any soldier or officer who misbehaved during divine worship, we now court-martial the chaplain whodares to wear his uniform while "worshipping in public" and we reward the Commanding Officer who entered his chapel and punished him
 for quoting the Bible in the pulpit?  Am I the only oneon this list, who still believesthe wayour Founding Fathers did?   Does anybody see the dramatic irony here? Chaplain Klingenschmitt  (Federal Convict) Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I decided to take a quick look over at section 6031. Subsection (a), which Chaplain Klingenschmitt quotes, does not provide that chaplains may "pray in Jesus's name" as part of their public services. It's much more modest, and not very objectionable.Subsections (b) and (c), on the otherhand, areunconstitutional
 relics:(b) The commanders of vessels and naval activities to which chaplains are attached shall cause divine service to be performed on Sunday, whenever the weather and other circumstances allow it to be done; and it is earnestly recommended to all officers, seamen, and others in the naval service diligently to attend at every performance of the worship of Almighty God.(c) All persons in the Navy and in the Marine Corps are enjoined to behave themselves in a reverent and becoming manner during divine service.  So I doubt the government will be invoking the authority of section 6031 anytime soon.Oh, and by the way, 6031 isn't much help to Chaplain Klingenschmitt for another reason, too: It's limited to the Navy and Marines. The analogous Air Force statute, 10 USC 8547, much more "appropriately"provides that "[e]ach chaplain shall, when practicable, hold appropriate religious services at least once on each Sunday for the command to which he is assigned, and shall perform appropriate religious burial services for members of the Air Force who die while in that command."- Original Message -   From: Marty Lederman   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Law  Religion issues for Law Academics   Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:50 PM  Subject: Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"Chaplain Klingenschmitt:With all due respect, this is simple nonsense.   
 1. Section 6031 does not say that military chaplains may pray "in Jesus's name," and if it did authorize such prayers in the chaplains' official capacities, it would almost certainly violate the Establishment Clause in that respect.2. For reasons we've discussed at great length before, chaplains have no Free Exercise rights to pray in the manner of their choosing when they are acting in their official capacities.3. Citing Lee v. Weisman, and only Lee v. Weisman, for the proposition that the state must permit a state employee to give a sectarian prayer in a public capacity, is just about the most absurd "reading" of a case that I've ever
 seen. 
		Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Ed Darrell
Washington was also careful about his orders -- notice that the law does not specify which "divine service." The law was partly to smooth the religious strife that was feared between units from New England and units from Virginia, and units from Maryland, and units from Pennsylvania -- all of which had different religious traditions. The law did not require attendance, nor did it require belief in Christianity -- it suggested everybody had a right to worship unmolested. Washington's orders to the troops invading Canada were even more specific -- do not in any case offend the faith of anyone whose faith differs from yours.In that light, the question Gordon raises becomes a little different, I think. The founders believed fully in not crossing the faith of another soldier nor even an enemy combatant. Where do we get off today thinking that modern chaplains shouldn't live up to the same high standards? Why not
 follow the example of our founders, and avoid insulting the faiths of others?Ed Darrell  DallasGordon James Klingenschmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Perhaps Marty's right about one thing...our modern "enlightened" reading of the Constitution has (sadly) evolved quite a distance from when the founding fathers wrote that beloved document. Here is theorigin ofthatportion of10 USC 6031 (which Marty quoted, but hated) as firstwritten by our Founding Fathers (who knew the Constitution's meaning better than we do, let's admit): One of the first acts of Congress in June, 1775 was to pass Articles of War.There
 were only 12 of them. Article 2 was basically "Go to church and treat it with respect."Art. II. It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend Divine Service; and all officers and soldiers who shall behave indecently or irreverently at any place of Divine Worship, shall, if commissioned officers, be brought before a court-martial. there to be publicly and severely reprimanded by the President; if non-commissioned officers or soldiers, every person so offending, shall, for his first offence, forfeit One Sixth of a Dollar, to be deducted out of his next pay; for the second offence, he shall not only forfeit a like sum, but be confined for twenty-four hours, and for every like offence, shall suffer and pay in like manner; which money so forfeited, shall be applied to the use of the sick soldiers of the troop or company to which the offender belongs.  How far
 then, Marty, has our nation devolved into anti-Christian decadence, when instead of court-martialing any soldier or officer who misbehaved during divine worship, we now court-martial the chaplain whodares to wear his uniform while "worshipping in public" and we reward the Commanding Officer who entered his chapel and punished him for quoting the Bible in the pulpit?  Am I the only oneon this list, who still believesthe wayour Founding Fathers did?   Does anybody see the dramatic irony here? Chaplain Klingenschmitt  (Federal Convict) Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I decided to
 take a quick look over at section 6031. Subsection (a), which Chaplain Klingenschmitt quotes, does not provide that chaplains may "pray in Jesus's name" as part of their public services. It's much more modest, and not very objectionable.Subsections (b) and (c), on the otherhand, areunconstitutional relics:(b) The commanders of vessels and naval activities to which chaplains are attached shall cause divine service to be performed on Sunday, whenever the weather and other circumstances allow it to be done; and it is earnestly recommended to all officers, seamen, and others in the naval service diligently to attend at every performance of the worship of Almighty God.(c) All persons in the Navy and in the Marine Corps are enjoined to behave themselves in a reverent and becoming manner during divine service.  So I doubt the government will be invoking the authority of section 6031 anytime soon.Oh, and by the way, 6031 isn't much help to Chaplain Klingenschmitt for another reason, too: It's limited to the Navy and Marines. The analogous Air Force statute, 10 USC 8547, much more "appropriately"provides that "[e]ach chaplain shall, when practicable, hold appropriate religious services at least once on each Sunday for the command to which he is assigned,
 and shall perform appropriate religious burial services for members of the Air Force who die while in that command."- Original Message -   From: Marty Lederman   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Law  Religion issues for Law Academics   Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:50 PM  Subject: Re: Victory for
 Military Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"Chaplain Klingenschmitt:With all due respect, this is simple nonsense.1. Section 6031 does not say that military chaplains may pray "in Jesus's name," and if it did authorize such prayers in the 

RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Scarberry, Mark
It seems there is a distinction between Divine/Religious Services and other 
command functions. I don't suppose Marty is saying that a chaplain may not 
pray in Jesus' name during Divine/Relgious Services. Paragraph 6(c) does not 
require that Divine/Religious Services be non-sectarian but only that religious 
elements in other command functions be non-sectarian. If Divine/Religious 
Services were required to be nonsectarian then they couldn't be divine services 
for the chaplain's particular faith; note that the chaplains are required to 
provide ministry to those of their own faith which rules out nonsectarian 
requirements for such ministry whether or not that ministry occurs in a 
Divine/Religious Service. I suppose there could be a serious question whether a 
particular memorial service for a deceased sailor (the context, I believe of 
Chaplain Klingenschmitt's disagreement with the Navy) is a Divine/Religious 
Service or instead a different kind of remembrance of the sailor. Whether 
nonsectarian prayer would be required might depend on how the event was 
classified, I think.
 
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of W. A. Wildhack III
Sent: Sat 9/30/2006 5:02 PM
To: 'Law  Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name


Disclaimer:  Any views expressed below are my own and do not necessarily 
reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy or the Navy 
Chaplain Corps.
 
Professors,
 
If the agreement to remove the Military Chaplains Prayer Law from the 
National Defense Authorization Act resulted somehow in language being inserted 
that would have the effect of rescinding the cited instructions and reinstating 
earlier directives --- and I did see the note asserting that the action has no 
operative legal effect --- far more may be rescinded than just the language 
described as limiting prayer.  I am not familiar with Air Force Instructions, 
but rescinding the Navy's 19-page instruction and reinstating the earlier, 
4-page instruction --- in addition to rescinding the section apparently at 
issue --- may also throw the following other provisions of the newer 
instruction into question:

*   
the position of Deputy Chief of Chaplains for Reserve Affairs
*   
express language requiring chaplains to strive to avoid the 
establishment of religion to ensure that free exercise rights are protected for 
all authorized personnel and to provide ministry to those of their own faith, 
facilitate ministry to those of other faiths, and care for all service members.
*   
a requirement for chaplains to respect the rights of others to their 
own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs.
*   
a prohibition against chaplains obtaining and wearing weapons or 
warfare qualifications
*   
an express prohibition against compelling chaplains to participate in 
religious activities inconsistent with their beliefls (suggesting, perhaps, 
that they can be so compelled?)
*   
a 3 1/2 page Department of the Navy policy on confidentiality of 
communications made to chaplains and religious program specialists, including 
broad new protections for servicemembers and chaplains that exceed even the 
rules on privileged communications in the UCMJ
*   
a 6 1/2 page Department of the Navy policy on accommodation of 
religious practices within the Navy apparently designed to protect the rights 
of both chaplains and other servicemembers.

For your convenience and some context, since my guess is that few have had the 
time to review the text of SECNAVINST 1730.7C, the key provisions at issue in 
all this appear to be in paragraphs 5.d. and 6. of the instruction.  Paragraph 
5.d. includes the following provisions (among others):

(2) As a condition of appointment, every [Religious Ministry 
Professional (RMP)] must be willing to function in a pluralistic environment in 
the military, where diverse religious traditions exist side-by-side with 
tolerance and respect. Every RMP must be willing to support directly and 
indirectly the free exercise of religion by all military members of the DON, 
their family members, and other, persons authorized to be served, in 
cooperation with other chaplains and RMPs. Chaplains are trained to minister 
within the specialized demands of the military environment without compromising 
the tenets of their own religious tradition.
 
(3) In providing religious ministry, chaplains shall strive to avoid 
the establishment of religion to ensure that free exercise rights are protected 
for all authorized personnel.
 
(4) Chaplains will provide ministry to those of their own faith, 
facilitate ministry to those of other faiths, and care for all service members, 
including those who claim no religious faith. Chaplains shall respect the 
rights

RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Excellent comment Professor Scarberry, But now that the policy is rescinded, so is any distinction between "public worship at divine services" and "public worship at command ceremonies" and so the law (once again) protects the chaplain at all events whenever he prays...prayer itself is restored as an act of "public worship" the same way italways had been since 1860.The origins of the 1860 law were described recently by ournew friend CDR Wildhack, who wrote in the Naval Law Review Vol 51 (2003): "As in our day, questions about the manner and forms of worship have also long been a part of the history of the Chaplain Corps. Early regulations specified that the duties of chaplains included having to 'read' prayers (53). In 1859, the Speaker of the House of Representatives asked the Secretary of the Navy whether chaplains
 were required to 'read' prayers or follow any particular forms or ceremony in leading worship, and if the Navy had any evidence of a requirement that non-Episcopal chaplains had to follow the Episcopal liturgy (54). In replying, the Secretary explained that he was not aware that the instruction to 'read' had ever been construed to require a literal reading from a particular prayer book, but rather as a requirement that prayers be offered aloud without specifying they be read from a book, written down by the chaplain beforehand to be read later, or offered extemporaneously (55). To further reassure the Speaker and his colleagues in Congress, the Secretary announced a new order officially interpreting the requirement that prayers be 'read' to mean that prayers be 'offered,' thus leaving the chaplain free to follow the dictates of his own religious tradition.(56) Perhaps in response to such communication with Congress, new Navy Regulations adopted in 1860 included this
 addition: "Every chaplain shall be permitted to conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he may be a member."(57) No longer merely a regulation, that language is now in force as part of the United States Code.(58)" Thanks to CDR Wildhack for this insightBut it reveals today'stragic ironythe Episcopal Book of Common Prayer was once seen as 'mandatory' for all chaplains...but Congress (wisely) overcame that, to allow non-Christian chaplains (i.e. first 3 Jewish chaplains appointed by Abe Lincoln in 1860) total freedom to NOT the use Christian prayer book...and now in 2006, the policy actually PROHIBITED using the Christian prayer bookin publicthe pendulum swung too far...so now Congress has (wisely) righted itself, to restorereligious diversity, allowing any variety of prayers to be said,instead of punishing Christian prayers while forcing
 Christian chaplains to pray Jewish prayers (i.e. theologically sensitive prayers). Chaplain Klingenschmitt  "Scarberry, Mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  It seems there is a distinction between "Divine/Religious Services" and other "command functions." I don't suppose Marty is saying that a chaplain may not pray in Jesus' name during Divine/Relgious Services. Paragraph 6(c) does not require that Divine/Religious Services be non-sectarian but only that religious elements in other command functions be non-sectarian. If Divine/Religious Services were required to be nonsectarian then they couldn't be divine services for the chaplain's particular faith; note that the chaplains are required to "provide ministry to those of their own faith" which rules out nonsectarian
 requirements for such ministry whether or not that ministry occurs in a Divine/Religious Service. I suppose there could be a serious question whether a particular memorial service for a deceased sailor (the context, I believe of Chaplain Klingenschmitt's disagreement with the Navy) is a Divine/Religious Service or instead a different kind of remembrance of the sailor. Whether nonsectarian prayer would be required might depend on how the event was classified, I think.Mark ScarberryPepperdine 
		Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name

2006-09-30 Thread Alan Brownstein
I think Mark's point is an important one. From the newspaper accounts I have 
read regarding the statutory language that was recently proposed to permit 
military chaplains to express sectarian prayer, the criticial issue was whether 
such prayers could be expressed at military functions that troops were 
compelled to attend. It is hard for me to see how anyone could doubt that such 
a requirement is unconstitutional. Compulsory attendance at religious services 
was one of the recognized abuses of established religions. If the framers 
intended the Establishment Clause to have any substantive meaning, it clearly 
prohibited such coercion. (See e.g. Michael Paulsen's article on Lee v, Weisman 
in which he recognized that this was a compelling justification for the Court's 
holding in that case). 
Certainly, if Chaplain Klingenschmitt's is suggesting that Lee v. Weisman 
permits such coercion he has misinterpreted that case.
 
I assume that the military carefully distinguishes between various command 
functions and Divine/Religious Services because it would be unconstitutional to 
compel attendance at the latter.
 
It is important to distinguish the specifics of Chaplain Klingenschmitt's case 
(which the Chaplain discribed in a much earlier post as a voluntary service) 
and the recent attempt to change military regulations regarding chaplains. The 
latter, according to all the newspaper accounts I have read, attempted to 
permit chaplains, at their discretion, to offer sectarian prayers (which I 
believe to be indistinguishable from Divine/Religious Services) at functions 
that troops were compelled to attend.
 
I have a hard time understanding how anyone committed to religious liberty 
could support such a regulation.
 
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Sat 9/30/2006 5:21 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name


It seems there is a distinction between Divine/Religious Services and other 
command functions. I don't suppose Marty is saying that a chaplain may not 
pray in Jesus' name during Divine/Relgious Services. Paragraph 6(c) does not 
require that Divine/Religious Services be non-sectarian but only that religious 
elements in other command functions be non-sectarian. If Divine/Religious 
Services were required to be nonsectarian then they couldn't be divine services 
for the chaplain's particular faith; note that the chaplains are required to 
provide ministry to those of their own faith which rules out nonsectarian 
requirements for such ministry whether or not that ministry occurs in a 
Divine/Religious Service. I suppose there could be a serious question whether a 
particular memorial service for a deceased sailor (the context, I believe of 
Chaplain Klingenschmitt's disagreement with the Navy) is a Divine/Religious 
Service or instead a different kind of remembrance of the sailor. Whether 
nonsectarian prayer would be required might depend on how the event was 
classified, I think.
 
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of W. A. Wildhack III
Sent: Sat 9/30/2006 5:02 PM
To: 'Law  Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name


Disclaimer:  Any views expressed below are my own and do not necessarily 
reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy or the Navy 
Chaplain Corps.
 
Professors,
 
If the agreement to remove the Military Chaplains Prayer Law from the 
National Defense Authorization Act resulted somehow in language being inserted 
that would have the effect of rescinding the cited instructions and reinstating 
earlier directives --- and I did see the note asserting that the action has no 
operative legal effect --- far more may be rescinded than just the language 
described as limiting prayer.  I am not familiar with Air Force Instructions, 
but rescinding the Navy's 19-page instruction and reinstating the earlier, 
4-page instruction --- in addition to rescinding the section apparently at 
issue --- may also throw the following other provisions of the newer 
instruction into question:

*   
the position of Deputy Chief of Chaplains for Reserve Affairs
*   
express language requiring chaplains to strive to avoid the 
establishment of religion to ensure that free exercise rights are protected for 
all authorized personnel and to provide ministry to those of their own faith, 
facilitate ministry to those of other faiths, and care for all service members.
*   
a requirement for chaplains to respect the rights of others to their 
own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs.
*   
a prohibition against chaplains obtaining and wearing weapons or 
warfare qualifications
*   
an express prohibition against compelling chaplains