A larger problem is that while people like us fret about the chaplains'
free-speech rights, at least some evangelical chaplains care little about the
letter or spirit of the rules within which their position is intended to
operate. Some, it is becoming clear, have their own agenda, and, when
confronted with concerns, respond indignantly that they answer to a higher
authority. The same chaplain who made the offensive comments at the Catholic
sailor's funeral went on the tell the Times: "The Navy wants to impose its
religion on me. Religious pluralism is a religion. It's a theology all by
itself."
The reality is that many in this debate will play dishonest semantic games --
twisting the issues, claiming victim status, and propounding
non-sequitors that
will be loudly repeated from pulpits, on cable shoutfests, and no doubt sooner
or later from the floor of Congress. So, setting aside my conviction
that this
sort of thing is exactly why it's ill-advised to fund religious ministry with
public funds, I would add to the agenda for discussion: how do we talk to the
public and relevant decisionmakers about the delicate balances that are
necessary if a program like this is to have constitutional integrity?
_________________________________
Steve Sanders
University of Michigan Law School
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wed: http://www.stevesanders.net
_______________________________________________
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.
