|
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 other hand,
are unconstitutional 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 -----
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 -----
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 old law (enshrined since 1860) to be fully
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-standing law to let military chaplains pray in
Jesus name, and
2) Government censorship of anyone's prayer content violates
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 in conference. That is
to say, the Senate conferees prevailed, and therefore the law
contains no such prescription.
But then the conferees purport to
"driect" the Secretary of the Air Force to rescind the recent
policy. This is not a "direction" of Congress, let alone a duly
enacted law, and it has no operative legal effect.
Besides which, for the chaplains in their
official capacities to engage in public prayer "in Jesus's name" would
violate the Establishment Clause, and thus could not be "prescribed," even
by statute.
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're
invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
_______________________________________________
To post, send
message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please
note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
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.
|
