To be appointed a chaplain, a person needs an ecclesiastical endorsement from a recognized endorsing agency connected with the person's faith group. See http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/about/requirements.html
Howard Friedman -----Original Message----- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Steve Sanders Sent: Mon 1/3/2011 6:27 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: May American court appoint only Muslim arbitrators,pursuant to an arbitration agreement? Is someone applying for a military chaplaincy required or expected to have some religious qualification or membership in a religious order? Could a nonbeliever who nonetheless has an extensive academic knowledge of religion sue for discrimination if she's denied such employment? On Jan 3, 2011, at 1:11 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > I'm not sure whether BFOQ doctrine as to religion helps us much as to the > First Amendment analysis. That private entities aren't barred from > discriminating based on religion in some contexts doesn't necessarily tell > us, I think, that the government has an equally free hand. > > Eugene > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- >> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Sanders >> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 12:53 PM >> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> Subject: RE: May American court appoint only Muslim arbitrators, pursuant to >> an arbitration agreement? >> >> I recognize this isn't an employment discrimination case, but is the >> constitutional problem eased if the religion of the arbitrators could >> be considered a bona fide occupational qualification? We recognize >> constitutional exceptions for those, right? >> >> Per Marc's question, presuming the contract was otherwise valid under >> state law, it's not clear to me that merely appointing arbitrators who >> are qualified according to the terms of a contract amounts to a court >> "applying sharia law." Evidently it's the arbitration panel, not the >> court, that is called on to apply sharia law in the course of >> interpreting the contract. >> >> Generally, the whole point of arbitration is to avoid the courts as >> much as possible through a private, extrajudicial mechanism for >> settling disputes. Parties typically agree on arbitrators without the >> involvement of a court. Thus, it seems to me that if an arbitration >> agreement is properly drafted, the constitutional issue of a court's >> discriminatory appointment process shouldn't arise as a matter of >> design. >> >> Steve Sanders >> >> Quoting Marc Stern <ste...@ajc.org>: >> >>> But would this agreement be enforceable in Oklahoma ,with its ban on courts >>> applying sharia law? >>> >>> Marc D. Stern >>> Associate General Counsel >>> 165 East 56th Street >>> NY NY 10022 >>> >>> ste...@ajc.org >>> 212.891.1480 >>> 646.287.2606 (cell) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock >>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 02:33 >>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Eric Rassbach >>> Subject: Re: May American court appoint only Muslim arbitrators,pursuant to >>> an arbitration agreement? >>> >>> The court could apparently comply with the contract, and avoid all >>> entanglement iwth religion, by appointing three Saudis. Does anybody see a >>> problem with that? >>> >>> I assume that all Saudis are Muslim, or at least that the percentage is so >>> high that the odds of appointing a non-Muslim Saudi are negligible. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:34:05 -0500 >>> Eric Rassbach <erassb...@becketfund.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Here is the relevant provision (in translation) from the case-link Eugene >>> sent around: >>>> >>>> The Arbitrator must be a Saudi national or a Moslem foreigner chosen >>> amongst the members of the liberal professions or other persons. He may >> also >>> be chosen amongst state officials after agreement of the authority on which >>> he depends. Should there be several arbitrators, the Chairman must know the >>> Shari'a, commercial laws and the customs in force in the Kingdom. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene >>> [vol...@law.ucla.edu] >>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 11:46 AM >>>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>>> Subject: RE: May American court appoint only Muslim arbitrators, pursuant >>> to an arbitration agreement? >>>> >>>> I agree with Nate's neutral principles / entanglement >>> argument. But I wonder whether one can so easily dismiss the equal >>> protection argument from the enforcement of the contract. The court, after >>> all, would have to decide who gets to perform an important and lucrative >>> task based on that person's religion, whether or not it's merely enforcing a >>> private contract. Of course the judge won't be acting based on religious >>> animus, but he will be deliberately treating people differently based on >>> religion. >>>> >>>> Also, is the Batson / J.E.B. line of cases relevant here, >>> assuming that it can be expanded to peremptories based on religion and not >>> just race or sex? (As I recall, most lower court cases that have considered >>> the issue have indeed expanded Batson and J.E.B. to religion.) If a court >>> may not allow a private party to challenge a juror based on religion, even >>> when the judge wouldn't himself be discriminating based on religion, may a >>> court allow private party agreement to provide for selection - by the judge >>> - of an arbitrator based on religion? >>>> >>>> Eugene >>>> >>>> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Nathan Oman >>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 7:28 AM >>>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>>> Subject: Re: May American court appoint only Muslim arbitrators, pursuant >>> to an arbitration agreement? >>>> >>>> It seems difficult to find an equal protection violation if the Court is >>> merely enforcing the contract. It seems to me that a more likely >>> constitutional objection would be that the contract cannot be enforced >>> without running afoul of the neutral principles doctrine. Can a court make >>> a decision about who is or is not a Muslim without making theological >>> choices? Would a shia muslim be acceptable? A member of the nation of >>> Islam? >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Nathan B. Oman >>>> Associate Professor >>>> William & Mary Law School >>>> P.O. Box 8795 >>>> Williamsburg, VA 23187 >>>> (757) 221-3919 >>>> >>>> "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be >>> mistaken." -Oliver Cromwell >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Volokh, Eugene >>> <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote: >>>> That's the issue lurking in In re Aramco Servs. >>> Co.<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11521915190435651264>, >> now >>> on appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. DynCorp and Aramco Services (both >> of >>> which were at the time Delaware corporations headquartered in Houston, >>> though Aramco Services is a subsidiary of Saudi >>> Aramco<https://www.aramcoservices.com/about/>, the Saudi government's >> oil >>> company) signed an agreement under which DynCorp was to create a >> computer >>> system (in the U.S.) and install it at Aramco's Saudi facilities. The >>> contract provided that it was to be interpreted under Saudi law, and >>> arbitrated under Saudi arbitration rules and regulations. Those rules and >>> regulations apparently call for the arbitrators to be Muslim Saudi citizens. >>> The trial court, however, appointed a three-arbitrator panel consisting of a >>> Muslim (apparently a Saudi) and two non-Muslim non-Saudis. Aramco >> appealed, >>> arguing that (1) under the contract the arbitrators were not supposed to be >>> appoi >>> nted by a >>>> court, and, (2) in the alternative, that the court erred in appointing >>> non-Muslim non-Saudis. >>>> >>>> The Texas Court of Appeals agreed with Aramco on item 1, and therefore >>> didn't reach item 2. But there is an interesting constitutional issue >>> lurking in the background: If a contract does call for a court to appoint >>> arbitrators, and provides that the arbitrators must be Muslims (or Jews or >>> Catholics or what have you), may a court implement that provision, or does >>> the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause bar the court - a >>> government entity - from discriminating based on religion this way, even >>> pursuant to a party agreement? Any thoughts on this? >>>> >>>> Eugene >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To post, send message to >>> Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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. >>> >>> Douglas Laycock >>> Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law >>> University of Virginia Law School >>> 580 Massie Road >>> Charlottesville, VA 22903 >>> 434-243-8546 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _________________________________ >> >> Steve Sanders >> E-mail: steve...@umich.edu >> Web: 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. >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
