Re: Anti-proselytizing lawsuit against the US Air Force
On Oct 15, 2005, at 1:11 AM, Nichols, Joel wrote:Of course this item in the complaint must be groundless. The act ofadministering the Eucharist is considered -- even intentionally -- to be an"evangelistic" act by many theological groups (especially EasternOrthodoxy). That sacrament is an entry and window into the life of God, andit is the belief and hope of many that the participants of the act willdeepen their faith (or join in faith) because of the act. The FirstAmendment cannot prohibit such theological belief and action.Performing sacraments is not what is intended. Until I saw this post I could not imagine that anyone could interpret it that way.It is a bit nonsensical to call a claim for relief in this context "groundless". One may not get exactly the relief requested or may not get it at all or may get it in revised form after input from others or review by judges. But to ask for chaplains to refrain from proselytizing seems to be the thrust of it and seems to comport with many conceptions of separation of religion and state and seems to comport with limits on the government's ability to establish religion.That said, I would hope that whatever relief is granted would be more carefully crafted with workable guidelines that would not seem to be quite so restrictive, even if such guidelines would be constitutional in a military context.As to "a." I must concede that the broader reading in light of the more complete context, that the "involutary" does not modify "persuade" seems to be the right one. And if that is the case, then I think it does go too far. Though there still can be time, place, manner, and in the military, content, limits on persuasion.Surely "b." is just a statement of standard constitutional law, right?Steve"Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I just got a copy of the Complaint in this lawsuit (Weinstein v.U.S. Air Force), and here's the claim for relief:26. Plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunctive relief thatthe USAF, Defendant Geren and its senior leadership adopt and adhere tothe following policies:a. No member of the USAF, including a chaplain, is permitted toevangelize, proselytize, or in any related way attempt to involuntarilyconvert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF toaccept their own religious beliefs while on duty.b. The USAF is not permitted to establish or advance any onereligion over another religion or one religion over no religion.Could paragraph (a) possibly be a legitimate demand? Could itreally be that the First Amendment bars individual USAF members fromtrying to "involuntarily . . . persuade" fel! low servicemembers -- notjust subordinates, but also peers -- "to accept their own religiousbeliefs," even "while on duty"?Eugene___ -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamarLay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 ___ 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: Anti-proselytizing lawsuit against the US Air Force
Of course this item in the complaint must be groundless. The act of administering the Eucharist is considered -- even intentionally -- to be an "evangelistic" act by many theological groups (especially Eastern Orthodoxy). That sacrament is an entry and window into the life of God, and it is the belief and hope of many that the participants of the act will deepen their faith (or join in faith) because of the act. The First Amendment cannot prohibit such theological belief and action. -Original Message- From: Gordon James Klingenschmitt To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: 10/14/2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Anti-proselytizing lawsuit against the US Air Force I'm speechless. No pun intended. Chaplain Klingenschmitt "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just got a copy of the Complaint in this lawsuit (Weinstein v. U.S. Air Force), and here's the claim for relief: 26. Plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunctive relief that the USAF, Defendant Geren and its senior leadership adopt and adhere to the following policies: a. No member of the USAF, including a chaplain, is permitted to evangelize, proselytize, or in any related way attempt to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty. b. The USAF is not permitted to establish or advance any one religion over another religion or one religion over no religion. Could paragraph (a) possibly be a legitimate demand? Could it really be that the First Amendment bars individual USAF members from trying to "involuntarily . . . persuade" fel! low servicemembers -- not just subordinates, but also peers -- "to accept their own religious beliefs," even "while on duty"? Eugene ___ _ Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yah oo.com/unlimited/> <> ___ 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: Anti-proselytizing lawsuit against the US Air Force
I'm speechless. No pun intended. Chaplain Klingenschmitt "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just got a copy of the Complaint in this lawsuit (Weinstein v.U.S. Air Force), and here's the claim for relief:26. Plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunctive relief thatthe USAF, Defendant Geren and its senior leadership adopt and adhere tothe following policies:a. No member of the USAF, including a chaplain, is permitted toevangelize, proselytize, or in any related way attempt to involuntarilyconvert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF toaccept their own religious beliefs while on duty.b. The USAF is not permitted to establish or advance any onereligion over another religion or one religion over no religion.Could paragraph (a) possibly be a legitimate demand? Could itreally be that the First Amendment bars individual USAF members fromtrying to "involuntarily . . . persuade" fel! low servicemembers -- notjust subordinates, but also peers -- "to accept their own religiousbeliefs," even "while on duty"?Eugene___ Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
