Alan's questions and thoughts below are excellent, and I don't think Chaplain Klingenschmitt has made any real effort to answer them. The Chaplain's response focused on Rigdon v. Perry, a decision that is no doubt important and seems to me to be correct. But the Chaplain does not seem prepared to acknowledge 1) Establishment Clause limits on what a government-employed clergyman may do in advancing his faith (or in casting doubt on others) in a government- sponsored setting (the memorial service) likely to include those who are there simply to pay respects; or 2) the military's overarching concerns with morale and religious divisiveness. No theory of the military chaplaincy (this is a subject begging for a good law review article) can be complete without attending to these questions.
And why is the Chaplain characterizing the Weinstein suit vs. Air Force Academy as one against him (Klingenschmitt) personally, rather than (as it seems to be) against officers of a government institution who allegedly have permitted officers under their control to foster an environment that is religiously hostile to some cadets? I must add that the Chaplain's posts, his website, and his sermon at the memorial service (taken together) suggest a degree and kind of zeal that (however appropriate for a member of the private clergy) will inevitably produce tension with the sort of ecumenical spirit that seems to me essential to the military chaplain's role. Chip On 9 Oct 2005 at 17:20, Alan Brownstein wrote: > > With respect, Chaplain Klingenschmitt, I believe most of the comments > on the list on this issue are not directed at your case. Indeed, the > focus of most comments were not even on what military Chaplains may or > may not say. Certainly that is true for my posts. > > But since the issue of military chaplains has been raised, let me > suggest a few distinctions that might be helpful. When a Chaplain is > conducting a service that is properly designated for personnel who > share his faith, I think he has broad discretion as to what he may say > during that service. > > The question is what constraints, if any, may limit the exercise of > his discretion as a matter of constitutional law and alternatively, > what constraints, if any, may military authorities impose on the > exercise of his discretion as a matter of military policy. > > It seems to me that there are several situations where constraints > might be permissible. (And I assure you Chaplain Klingenschmitt that > the only one of these situations that even remotely bears any > relevance to your case, as I understand it, is the last one > involving a memorial service. I am trying to probe the outer limits of > doctrine in this area. I do not want these examples to be misconstrued > as suggesting anything negative about your conduct) > > * If a Chaplains comments placed the physical security of military > personnel of other faiths at > risk, would such comments justify intervention? That, of course, > is the extreme case and it is difficult to imagine anything like > that happening today. > * If a Chaplains comments incited the harassment of military > personnel of other faiths, would > such comments justify some response from the authorities? If such > harassment in fact occurred and could fairly be understood to have > been caused by a Chaplains comments, would some kind of > intervention be warranted? > * If a Chaplains comments caused distrust among military personnel > of various faiths and > undermined moral, that may be a harder case in part because of > the indeterminacy of the harm alleged (distrust and loss of > morale) and in part because of the difficulty in demonstrating > causation. Should we trust the judgment of military authorities in > such situations? > * If a Chaplains comments during a memorial service for a soldier > or sailor would be > experienced by military personnel of others faiths as disparaging > or hurtful to such an extent that they would feel unwelcome at > the service and would be discouraged from attending future > memorial services for deceased comrades or shipmates, should > anything be done by military authorities. This last case involves > a conflict between the religious liberty of the Chaplain to > conduct the service according to the dictates of his faith and the > interest of military personnel of other faiths who want to be able > to show their respect for, and to memorialize, a fallen comrade by > attending a memorial service in his honor. I suppose one way to > resolve that conflict would be to hold two memorial services; one > a more sectarian service for members of the decedents faith and > the other a more ecumenical service for military personnel of > diverse faiths. Im not sure how often dual services would be > necessary. I have certainly attended funeral services for > Christian colleagues and have never heard anything said that made > me feel unwelcome or disparaged my faith. But I recognize that > this may not be true for the services of all the diverse Christian > sects in our society. Would holding dual services be an acceptable > solution to this last situation? > > Alan Brownstein > UC Davis > > > > > > > > > > > Now as law professors,as teachers of our future leaders,will you > actually teach your students thatgovernment should agree with them,and > side with Mr. Weinstein and Yale Divinity, and enter the Protestant > Chapel to silence the chaplain's speechwith military policemen? Sandy? > Paul? Chip? Alan? I cannot think you really believe what you're > saying. Please keep the government out of my chapel. Please. > > > > I hope I've not been disrespectful to anyone. This is a very emotional > subject for me. > > > > Very respectfully, > > Chaplain Klingenschmitt > > > > > > > Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. > Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 (202) 994-7053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.