RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Navys "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. Hes now been ordered by Congress to rescind his illegal policy, and stop his censorship of chaplains prayers. Winter is over, its 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 commanders 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
