RE: Free speech for chaplains
I wonder if it matters that the military is made up of, more or less, volunteers, not conscripts. I, obviously, think that it does. This fact strengthens the militarys needs for cohesion and weakens the claims of volunteer soldiers to have religion their way, regardless of the impact of their religion on their fellow soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors. For in truth, the question is one of how to strike the proper balance. I think that the case is easy, but it is an interesting one, nonetheless. -Original Message- From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:37 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Free speech for chaplains Sandy helps illustrate my point. There are some soldiers, like Sandy, who do not wish chaplains to try to save them. They believe they are just fine the way they are thanks.But there are other soldiers, perhaps likeI once was,who are searching forGod and for salvation and want chaplains to show them the way. Perhaps we need both kinds of chaplains in the armed services, but we should not allow one kind of soldier to have a heckler's veto over chaplains who might be meeting the needs of other kinds of soldiers. Nor should the EC be interpreted to allow the military to serve as a board of acceptable theology for chaplains. There are literally millions of Christians, like me,who bless the day some one--often a stranger--explained the doctrine of salvation by faith to them. Thank God forall the busybodies who took the time to throw a lifeline to wretches like me!If I were a soldier whisked away from my home town and perhaps facing death beyond the next turn in the road, I would want a chaplain who would not hesitate to preach Christ andsalvationto me. Rick Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick writes: If I were on a road heading for a cliff, I would want to be told that the road I was on was bad and that another road was good. The same is true of the spiritual roads I travel. If Iwere heading for Hell, I would not want a chaplain to comfort me and tell me that everything was fine and dandy. I would want him to help me get off the wrong road andon the right road. * I confess that I think thatRick isright. In an essay published in Wrestling With Diversity, I note my own childhood in Hendersonville, NC, where some of my friends did indeed try to help me in the way that Rick suggests. I obviously didn't accept the help, but I did not in fact resent the effort, since I had no doubt about its motivation (and, as a matter of fact, they didn't press the point once it was clear that I was not going to convert). That being said, I still resent similar efforts coming from those who are not my friends, especially when if they occur in official settings. sandy ___ 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or nu! mbered. --The Prisoner Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. ___ 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: Free speech for chaplains
Suppose you were religiously as you are, and in the service today. What standard of conduct should there be for a chaplinof another denomination who sincerely believed you wereutterly lostwithout conversion to his religious view?-Original Message-From: Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:37:07 -0700 (PDT)Subject: RE: Free speech for chaplains Sandy helps illustrate my point. There are some soldiers, like Sandy, who do not wish chaplains to try to save them. They believe they are just fine the way they are thanks.But there are other soldiers, perhaps likeI once was,who are searching forGod and for salvation and want chaplains to show them the way. Perhaps we need both kinds of chaplains in the armed services, but we should not allow one kind of soldier to have a heckler's veto over chaplains who might be meeting the needs of other kinds of soldiers. Nor should the EC be interpreted to allow the military to serve as a board of acceptable theology for chaplains. There are literally millions of Christians, like me,who bless the day some one--often a stranger--explained the doctrine of salvation by faith to them. Thank God forall the busybodies who took the time to throw a lifeline to wretches like me!If I were a soldier whisked away from my home town and perhaps facing death beyond the next turn in the road, I would want a chaplain who would not hesitate to preach Christ andsalvationto me. RickSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick writes: If I were on a road heading for a cliff, I would want to be told that the road I was on was bad and that another road was good. The same is true of the spiritual roads I travel. If Iwere heading for Hell, I would not want a chaplain to comfort me and tell me that everything was fine and dandy. I would want him to help me get off the wrong road andon the right road. * I confess that I think thatRick isright. In an essay published in Wrestling With Diversity, I note my own childhood in Hendersonville, NC, where some of my friends did indeed try to "help me" in the way that Rick suggests. I obviously didn't accept the help, but I did not in fact resent the effort, since I had no doubt about its motivation (and, as a matter of fact, they didn't press the point once it was clear that I was not going to convert). That being said, I still resent similar efforts coming from those who are not my friends, especially when if they occur in "official" settings. sandy___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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or nu! ! mbered." --The Prisoner Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. ___ 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.
Re: Free speech for chaplains
He could tell me I was unsaved and needed to make a different choice (Baal or whatever)if I wanted to be saved. I would say thanks but no thanks, I've got Jesus. Indeed, if he truly thought I was on the road to Hell and didn't tell me, he would not be showing me respect and love; he would be saying: "I don't care that you are damned. I will just make you feel good about what you believe." This is not love; it is indifference. Cheers, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose you were religiously as you are, and in the service today. What standard of conduct should there be for a chaplinof another denomination who sincerely believed you wereutterly lostwithout conversion to his religious view?-Original Message-From: Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:37:07 -0700 (PDT)Subject: RE: Free speech for chaplains Sandy helps illustrate my point. There are some soldiers, like Sandy, who do not wish chaplains to try to save them. They believe they are just fine the way they are thanks.But there are other soldiers, perhaps likeI once was,who are searching forGod and for salvation and want chaplains to show them the way. Perhaps we need both kinds of chaplains in the armed services, but we should not allow one kind of soldier to have a heckler's veto over chaplains who might be meeting the needs of other kinds of soldiers. Nor should the EC be interpreted to allow the military to serve as a board of acceptable theology for chaplains. There are literally millions of Christians, like me,who bless the day some one--often a stranger--explained the doctrine of salvation by faith to them. Thank God forall the busybodies who took the time to throw a lifeline to wretches like me!If I were a soldier whisked away from my home town and perhaps facing death beyond the next turn in the road, I would want a chaplain who would not hesitate to preach Christ andsalvationto me. RickSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick writes: If I were on a road heading for a cliff, I would want to be told that the road I was on was bad and that another road was good. The same is true of the spiritual roads I travel. If Iwere heading for Hell, I would not want a chaplain to comfort me and tell me that everything was fine and dandy. I would want him to help me get off the wrong road andon the right road. * I confess that I think thatRick isright. In an essay published in Wrestling With Diversity, I note my own childhood in Hendersonville, NC, where some of my friends did indeed try to "help me" in the way that Rick suggests. I obviously didn't accept the help, but I did not in fact resent the effort, since I had no doubt about its motivation (and, as a matter of fact, they didn't press the point once it was clear that I was not going to convert). That being said, I still resent similar efforts coming from those who are not my friends, especially when if they occur in "official" settings. sandy___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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or nu! ! ! mbered." --The Prisoner Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. ___ 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.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.Rick Duncan Welpton Prof
Re: Free speech for chaplains
The military is funded by citizens for the business of fighting wars, not going about proactively searching for souls that need to be saved. Any soldier who feels the need may, of course, seek out a chaplain, and if one thing leads to another, fine. But if a chaplain's initial approaches are rebuffed, the chaplain must cease and desist. Of course, the soldier who becomes, so to speak, a satisfied customer is unlikely to complain. But if a soldier lodges a valid complaint that he has been harassed or demeaned, the chaplain should be subjected to appropriate discipline. The dictates of chaplain's conscience are not a higher calling than military duty. For any chaplain that finds them so, there is civilian life. Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Suppose you were religiously as you are, and in the service today. What standard of conduct should there be for a chaplin of another denomination who sincerely believed you were utterly lost without conversion to his religious view? -Original Message- From: Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RE: Free speech for chaplains Sandy helps illustrate my point. There are some soldiers, like Sandy, who do not wish chaplains to try to save them. They believe they are just fine the way they are thanks. But there are other soldiers, perhaps like I once was, who are searching for God and for salvation and want chaplains to show them the way. Perhaps we need both kinds of chaplains in the armed services, but we should not allow one kind of soldier to have a heckler's veto over chaplains who might be meeting the needs of other kinds of soldiers. Nor should the EC be interpreted to allow the military to serve as a board of acceptable theology for chaplains. There are literally millions of Christians, like me, who bless the day some one--often a stranger--explained the doctrine of salvation by faith to them. Thank God for all the busybodies who took the time to throw a lifeline to wretches like me! If I were a soldier whisked away from my home town and perhaps facing death beyond the next turn in the road, I would want a chaplain who would not hesitate to preach Christ and salvation to me. Rick Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick writes: If I were on a road heading for a cliff, I would want to be told that the road I was on was bad and that another road was good. The same is true of the spiritual roads I travel. If I were heading for Hell, I would not want a chaplain to comfort me and tell me that everything was fine and dandy. I would want him to help me get off the wrong road and on the right road. * I confess that I think that Rick is right. In an essay published in Wrestling With Diversity, I note my own childhood in Hendersonville, NC, where some of my friends did indeed try to help me in the way that Rick suggests. I obviously didn't accept the help, but I did not in fact resent the effort, since I had no doubt about its motivation (and, as a matter of fact, they didn't press the point once it was clear that I was not going to convert). That being said, I still resent similar efforts coming from those who are not my friends, especially when if they occur in official settings. sandy ___ 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or nu! mbered. --The Prisoner Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items. ___ 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
RE: Free speech for chaplains
Mark asks a good question.
I don't know how the military hires chaplins, but I expect it is by religion-neutral credentials ("ordained" status, theology degree, etc). So in one sense this is a religious test. But it is not a test that turns on the military's disapproval of a particular religious belief or tenet.
Could the military annouce that all chaplins must affirm the divinity of Christ? Would that requirement be constitutional? Or how about requiring that all chaplins must affirm the belief that all meat is clean and edible. Would that be permissible? Sandy was suggesting that a chaplin should be disciplined for expressing a religious belief about salvation through Christ.
If the EC and FEC and FSC has any bite in the military, the military should not have the power to single out certain religious beliefs as verboten and punish chaplins who express them.
Cheers, Rick Duncan
Mark Graber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does the military appoint a chaplain without requiring a religious test for the office?
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/05 11:12AM
Sandy's question is an interesting one. Can the military fire or disciplinea chaplin because the military disagrees with his religious beliefs (or at least with his preaching of his religious beliefs)? Doesn't such a decision amount to a religious test for office? Or at the very least, denominational discrimination forbidden by Larson v. Valente (evangelicals need not apply)?
In other words, could the military require a doctrinal statement--"salvation is universal for all who believe anything sincerely"-- for the office of chaplin?
To put a twist on the issue, suppose a chaplin preaches that homosexual marriages are within God's will. Could a chaplin be disciplined for preaching that?
Cheers, Rick DuncamSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a fascinating article in today's NYTimes on the increasing number of Evangelical chaplains in the armed services. Consider oe James Klingenschmitt, of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, whose retention was recommended against by his commanding officer following, among other things, his preaching at a memorial service at sea for a Catholic sailor that "emphasized that for those who did not accept Jesus, 'God's wrath remains upon him.'" I presume that the this was not meant to apply to the Catholic seaman, but it obviously suggested to any Jewish or Muslim (or atheist or Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.) that they were condemned to God's wrath. In any event, is there a serious argument that it is improper to take such speech into account in deciding whether to recommend that the contract be renewed. I presume, incidentally, that the armed forces would not renew the contract of a chaplain who sugested that a given wa!
! r was
in fact "unjust," If the armed services can constittionally do that (presumably on grounds that it is not good for the morale of those in the armed services), then why can't it fire chaplains who suggest that many members of the armed services are damned to eternal perdition?
sandy___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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
! __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I!
will not
be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile
RE: Free speech for chaplains
Of course, this isn't a context in which religious tests can be eliminated altogether. (Query: Why isn't it therefore a violation of article VI?) But the military clergy hiring must be nondenominational, i.e., made without sectarian discrimination. (But cf. the recent Simpson Wiccan decision and Scalia and Thomas opinions in the Ten Commandments cases, all of which give a green light to sectarian discrimination.) I assume that the comments in question here were spoken in Klingenschmitt's official capacity. If so, he violated the Establishment Clause, and the government can discipline him for acting in clear violation of the Constitution (and, for that matter, in violation of military rules about appropriate official speech and conduct). That is to say, this (presumably) is not a penalty imposed based on Klingenschmitt's *private* speech or beliefs, as Rick Duncan appears to assume. To the extent my assumption is wrong, and it *is* a punishment for speech in his private capacity, it raises interesting questions at the intersection of Pickering/Connick/Torcaso/McDaniel/Larson/etc. ___ 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. ---BeginMessage--- How does the military appoint a chaplain without requiring a religious test for the office? MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/05 11:12AM Sandy's question is an interesting one. Can the military fire or disciplinea chaplin because the military disagrees with his religious beliefs (or at least with his preaching of his religious beliefs)? Doesn't such a decision amount to a religious test for office? Or at the very least, denominational discrimination forbidden by Larson v. Valente (evangelicals need not apply)? In other words, could the military require a doctrinal statement--"salvation is universal for all who believe anything sincerely"-- for the office of chaplin? To put a twist on the issue, suppose a chaplin preaches that homosexual marriages are within God's will. Could a chaplin be disciplined for preaching that? Cheers, Rick DuncamSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a fascinating article in today's NYTimes on the increasing number of Evangelical chaplains in the armed services. Consider oe James Klingenschmitt, of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, whose retention was recommended against by his commanding officer following, among other things, his preaching at a memorial service at sea for a Catholic sailor that "emphasized that for those who did not accept Jesus, 'God's wrath remains upon him.'" I presume that the this was not meant to apply to the Catholic seaman, but it obviously suggested to any Jewish or Muslim (or atheist or Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.) that they were condemned to God's wrath. In any event, is there a serious argument that it is improper to take such speech into account in deciding whether to recommend that the contract be renewed. I presume, incidentally, that the armed forces would not renew the contract of a chaplain who sugested that a given wa! r was in fact "unjust," If the armed services can constittionally do that (presumably on grounds that it is not good for the morale of those in the armed services), then why can't it fire chaplains who suggest that many members of the armed services are damned to eternal perdition? sandy___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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner ! __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---End Message--- ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe,
RE: Free speech for chaplains
The leading (and quite thorough) opinion on the military chaplaincy and the Establishment Clause is Katcoff v. Marsh, 755 F. 2d 223 (2nd Cir. 1985). The justification for chaplains is to minister to religious needs of members of the Armed Forces. Frequently, the circumstances of soldiers and sailors preclude their ordinary participation in their own faith community. And Sam Ventola is right -- chaplains, especially in foreign postings, have to be able to minister to the religious needs of all soldiers, and they are trained by the military to do so (typically after being ordained as clergy by their own faith community). A clergyman or woman who could not minister to all would not be very useful as a chaplain, and could quite legitimately be drummed out of the chaplaincy corps. Chip Lupu On 12 Jul 2005 at 9:47, Sanford Levinson wrote: There is a fascinating article in today's NYTimes on the increasing number of Evangelical chaplains in the armed services. Consider oe James Klingenschmitt, of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, whose retention was recommended against by his commanding officer following, among other things, his preaching at a memorial service at sea for a Catholic sailor that emphasized that for those who did not accept Jesus, 'God's wrath remains upon him.' I presume that the this was not meant to apply to the Catholic seaman, but it obviously suggested to any Jewish or Muslim (or atheist or Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.) that they were condemned to God's wrath. In any event, is there a serious argument that it is improper to take such speech into account in deciding whether to recommend that the contract be renewed. I presume, incidentally, that the armed forces would not renew the contract of a chaplain who sugested that a given war was in fact unjust, If the armed services can constittionally do that (presumably on grounds that it is not good for the morale of those in the armed services), then why can't it fire chaplains who suggest that many members of the armed services are damned to eternal perdition? sandy Ira C. (Chip) Lupu F. Elwood Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 (202) 994-7053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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: Free speech for chaplains
I don't think any chaplin can minister to all soldiers. For example, many believing Christians could not be ministered to by a chaplin who did not believe that Christ is what He said he was, the only way to the Father. Any attempt to exclude chaplins who preach salvation through Christ is a form of denominational discrimination. Worse, it is an official act of disapproval of a particular religious belief, one held by many (perhaps even a majority) of the service men and women who are away from their home churches to serve and defend our Nation.
If we can not administer a military chaplin program without engaging in censorship of certain religious beliefs from sermons and prayers, then perhaps the entire program should be trashed as a violation of Larson v. Valente.
RickLupu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The leading (and quite thorough) opinion on the military chaplaincy and the Establishment Clause is Katcoff v. Marsh, 755 F. 2d 223 (2nd Cir. 1985). The justification for chaplains is to minister to religious needs of members of the Armed Forces. Frequently, the circumstances of soldiers and sailors preclude their ordinary participation in their own faith community. And Sam Ventola is right -- chaplains, especially in foreign postings, have to be able to minister to the religious needs of all soldiers, and they are trained by the military to do so (typically after being ordained as clergy by their own faith community). A clergyman or woman who could not minister to all would not be very useful as a chaplain, and could quite legitimately be drummed out of the chaplaincy corps.Chip LupuOn 12 Jul 2005 at 9:47, Sanford L!
evinson
wrote: There is a fascinating article in today's NYTimes on the increasing number of Evangelical chaplains in the armed services. Consider oe James Klingenschmitt, of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, whose retention was recommended against by his commanding officer following, among other things, his preaching at a memorial service at sea for a Catholic sailor that "emphasized that for those who did not accept Jesus, 'God's wrath remains upon him.'" I presume that the this was not meant to apply to the Catholic seaman, but it obviously suggested to any Jewish or Muslim (or atheist or Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.) that they were condemned to God's wrath. In any event, is there a serious argument that it is improper to take such speech into account in deciding whether to recommend that the contract be renewed. I presume, incidentally, that the armed forces would !
not renew
the contract of a chaplain who sugested that a given war was in fact "unjust," If the armed services can constittionally do that (presumably on grounds that it is not good for the morale of those in the armed services), then why can't it fire chaplains who suggest that many members of the armed services are damned to eternal perdition? sandyIra C. ("Chip") LupuF. Elwood Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NWWashington D.C 20052(202) 994-7053[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]___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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
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: Free speech for chaplains
I have a question for Marty. If it violates the EC for a chaplin to preach--in his official capacity--the doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ, thenwhy aren'tall official sermons and prayers violations of the EC? Surely, the EC does not allow the official praying of some prayers and the official preaching of some religious doctrines while forbidding others? Does it? Denominational neutrality is at the core of the EC. Clearly, government has no business expressing approval of some and disapproval of other sermons and prayers. Am I wrong? If so, where are the lists of those doctines that have the government's blessing (and those that have its curse)? Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, this isn't a context in which religious tests can be eliminated altogether. (Query: Why isn't it therefore a violation of article VI?) But the military clergy hiring must be nondenominational, i.e., made without sectarian discrimination. (But cf. the recent Simpson Wiccan decision and Scalia and Thomas opinions in the Ten Commandments cases, all of which give a green light to sectarian discrimination.)I assume that the comments in question here were spoken in Klingenschmitt's official capacity. If so, he violated the Establishment Clause, and the government can discipline him for acting in clear violation of the Constitution (and, for that matter, in violation of military rules about appropriate official speech and conduct). That is to say, this (presumably) is not a penalty imposed based on Klingenschmitt's *private* speech or beliefs, as Rick Duncan appea! rs to assume. To the extent my assumption is wrong, and it *is* a punishment for speech in his private capacity, it raises interesting questions at the intersection of Pickering/Connick/Torcaso/McDaniel/Larson/etc. ___ 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.From: "Mark Graber" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: RE: Free speech for chaplainsDate: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:20:47 + How does the military appoint a chaplain without requiring a religious test for the office? MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/05 11:12AM Sandy's question is an interesting one. Can the military fire or disciplinea chaplin because the military disagrees with his religious beliefs (or at least with his preaching of his religious beliefs)? Doesn't such a decision amount to a religious test for office? Or at the very least, denominational discrimination forbidden by Larson v. Valente (evangelicals need not apply)? In other words, could the military require a doctrinal statement--"salvation is universal for all who believe anything sincerely"-- for the office of chaplin? To put a twist on the issue, suppose a chaplin preaches that homosexual marriages are within God's will. Could a chaplin be disciplined for preaching that? Cheers, Rick DuncamSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a fascinating article in today's NYTimes on the increasing number of Evangelical chaplains in the armed services. Consider oe James Klingenschmitt, of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, whose retention was recommended against by his commanding officer following, among other things, his preaching at a memorial service at sea for a Catholic sailor that "emphasized that for those who did not accept Jesus, 'God's wrath remains upon him.'" I presume that the this was not meant to apply to the Catholic seaman, but it obviously suggested to any Jewish or Muslim (or atheist or Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.) that they were condemned to God's wrath. In any event, is there a serious argument that it is improper to take such speech into account in deciding whether to recommend that the contract be renewed. I presume, incidentally, that the armed forces would not renew the contract of a chaplain who sugested that a given wa! ! r was in fact "unjust," If the armed services can constittionally do that (presumably on grounds that it is not good for the morale of those in the armed services), then why can't it fire chaplains who suggest that many members of the armed services are damned to eternal perdition? sandy___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
RE: Free speech for chaplains
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.
RE: Free speech for chaplains
It seems to me that, as with much in the military (not everything, perhaps, but much), the First Amendment neither mandates nor forbids any particular military policy with regard to chaplains' speech. The Establishment Clause surely can't bar chaplains from endorsing some theological views -- after all, they're chaplains. Nor can it really insist that they be nondenominational; it's one thing to require such nondenominationality (more or less) in brief government statements, or even in brief, pro forma prayers, but as I understand it the chaplain's duties including conducting actual services, which it's hard to make nondenominational. At the same time, it seems to me that the speech interests of a chaplain, like that of any other soldier, must be subordinated to the needs of military discipline and morale. Chaplains' publicly saying things that alienate soldiers from the chaplain, or from each other, may well worsen morale, and the military is entitled to restrict that. Naturally, anything chaplains say may offend the hypothetical observer who's offended by any government statement on religion. But some things, including stressing the damnation of those who don't share the chaplain's philosophy, are likely to offend many more people who hear the statements or hear of the statements, and to offend them more severely; moreover, they may well lead to a weakening of unoffended listeners' bonds of camaraderie with their dissenting fellow soldiers. If the military tells chaplains that they had best limit their preaching to things that help the military mission rather than hurt it -- or, if their faith demands otherwise, that they return to civilian life -- that, it seems to me, would be entirely constitutional. Eugene ___ 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: Free speech for chaplains
Title: Message I have no animus toward evangelicals, in the sense of hostility to them because of their beliefs, just as I have no animus towards religiously devout vegetarians. But I wouldn't hire a religiously devout vegetarian (or any vegetarian, for that matter) for a chef at a nonvegetarian restaurant, since chefs have to appreciate the food they're cooking, and often taste it. I likewise wouldn't suggest that the military hire a chaplain whose views prove divisive; and if evangelical theology necessarily requires that, I can respect evangelical chaplains' views while still concluding that those who insist on preaching that aspect of their theology ought not be hired as military chaplains. (I personally suspect that many evangelicals are quite capable of preaching in ways that minimize possible divisiveness, but if their theology really demands otherwise, they should do their preaching outside the military.) It's good to provide a good deal of choice in chaplains to soldiers, but it's sometimes impossible. When a unit is in a foxhole, they can't just radio in the right chaplain; if there's one around, they'll use him, and he has to be ready for that. Likewise, when a soldier is dying (or is even seriously injured and needs solace right away), one often can't pick and choose. Finally, even if every soldier has the chaplain he wants, but some of those chaplains preach things that weaken soldiers' bonds to each other, the military is quite entitled to show those chaplains the door. Eugene -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:47 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Free speech for chaplains I am far less concerned about the chaplins' free speech rights than I am about the EC and thegovernment branding certain religious doctrines as verboten in the program. I don't think the government has power under the EC to discriminate among religious doctrines, permitting the _expression_ of some and forbidding the _expression_ of others. Maybe the remedy is to dramatically expand the chaplin program to ensure that all (or at least the great majority) of service men and women have a chaplin who is a fellow believer. When a Catholic needs a chaplin, he should get a priest. An evangelical should get an evangelical. A Jew should get a rabbi. And so on. By the way, am I too sensitive or do I perceive a certain animus toward evangelicals in this discussion? Rick Steve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A larger problem is that while people like us fret about the chaplains'free-speech rights, at least some evangelical chaplains care little about theletter or spirit of the rules within which their position is intended tooperate. Some, it is becoming clear, have their own agenda, and, whenconfronted with concerns, respond indignantly that they answer to a higherauthority. The same chaplain who made the offensive comments at the Catholicsailor's funeral went on the tell the Times: "The Navy wants to impose itsreligion on me. Religious pluralism is a religion. It's a theology all byitself."The reality is that many in this debate will play dishonest semantic games --twisting the issues, claiming victim status, and propounding non-sequitors thatwill be loudly repeated from pulpits, on cable shoutfests, and no doubt sooneror l! ater from the floor of Congress. So, setting aside my conviction that thissort of thing is exactly why it's ill-advised to fund religious ministry withpublic funds, I would add to the agenda for discussion: how do we talk to thepublic and relevant decisionmakers about the delicate balances that arenecessary if a program like this is to have constitutional integrity?_Steve SandersUniversity of Michigan Law SchoolEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Wed: http://www.stevesanders.net___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 (rig! htly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
Re: Free speech for chaplains
Rick: It has been always my understanding that a military chaplin serves the military and all military personnel; in WWI and WWII there were cases of Jewish and Protestant chaplins giving last rites to Catholic soldiers; and Catholic priests helping Jews have a sedar or helping them be relieved of duty to fast. It, as it seems here, an evangelical will not do this sort of work, will not perform as a soldier first, whose job is to help provide for the spiritual needs of other soldiers, then the evangelical chaplin is not doing his duty. The Navy, for example, cannot have ten different (or even perhaps 2 different) chaplins on each ship; so if someone is a chaplin he or she must be prepared to serve the soldiers and sailors, not to serve their own denominational needs. A chaplin should not be trying to evangelize anyone. This is not a bias against evangelical ministers; it is a bias against anyone in the chaplin corps who does not understand that his or her first duty is to all the soldiers and sailors and to help them in *their* faith. Paul Finkelman Rick Duncan wrote: I am far less concerned about the chaplins' free speech rights than I am about the EC and thegovernment branding certain religious doctrines as verboten in the program. I don't think the government has power under the EC to discriminate among religious doctrines, permitting the _expression_ of some and forbidding the _expression_ of others. Maybe the remedy is to dramatically expand the chaplin program to ensure that all (or at least the great majority) of service men and women have a chaplin who is a fellow believer. When a Catholic needs a chaplin, he should get a priest. An evangelical should get an evangelical. A Jew should get a rabbi. And so on. By the way, am I too sensitive or do I perceive a certain animus toward evangelicals in this discussion? Rick Steve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 l! ater 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 (rig! htly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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 Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74105 918-631-3706 (voice) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL
RE: Free speech for chaplains
Title: Message The answer has to be that the government can fire chaplains who suggest that. It is not good for morale. Given the basis or justification for having chaplains in the first place cuts against any broad and sweeping first amendment free speech claim on the part of the chaplains. -Original Message- From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:48 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Free speech for chaplains There is a fascinating article in today's NYTimes on the increasing number of Evangelical chaplains in the armed services. Consider oe James Klingenschmitt, of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, whose retention was recommended against by his commanding officer following, among other things, his preaching at a memorial service at sea for a Catholic sailor that emphasized that for those who did not accept Jesus, 'God's wrath remains upon him.' I presume that the this was not meant to apply to the Catholic seaman, but it obviously suggested to any Jewish or Muslim (or atheist or Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.) that they were condemned to God's wrath. In any event, is there a serious argument that it is improper to take such speech into account in deciding whether to recommend that the contract be renewed. I presume, incidentally, that the armed forces would not renew the contract of a chaplain who sugested that a given war was in fact unjust, If the armed services can constittionally do that (presumably on grounds that it is not good for the morale of those in the armed services), then why can't it fire chaplains who suggest that many members of the armed services are damned to eternal perdition? sandy ___ 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: Free speech for chaplains
Ill bite. The chaplain can be disciplined. Such preaching is clearly bad for military morale, given the current rules regarding homosexuality and the military. -Original Message- From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:13 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Free speech for chaplains Sandy's question is an interesting one. Can the military fire or disciplinea chaplin because the military disagrees with his religious beliefs (or at least with his preaching of his religious beliefs)? Doesn't such a decision amount to a religious test for office? Or at the very least, denominational discrimination forbidden by Larson v. Valente (evangelicals need not apply)? In other words, could the military require a doctrinal statement--salvation is universal for all who believe anything sincerely-- for the office of chaplin? To put a twist on the issue, suppose a chaplin preaches that homosexual marriages are within God's will. Could a chaplin be disciplined for preaching that? Cheers, Rick Duncam Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a fascinating article in today's NYTimes on the increasing number of Evangelical chaplains in the armed services. Consider oe James Klingenschmitt, of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, whose retention was recommended against by his commanding officer following, among other things, his preaching at a memorial service at sea for a Catholic sailor that emphasized that for those who did not accept Jesus, 'God's wrath remains upon him.' I presume that the this was not meant to apply to the Catholic seaman, but it obviously suggested to any Jewish or Muslim (or atheist or Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.) that they were condemned to God's wrath. In any event, is there a serious argument that it is improper to take such speech into account in deciding whether to recommend that the contract be renewed. I presume, incidentally, that the armed forces would not renew the contract of a chaplain who sugested that a given wa! r was in fact unjust, If the armed services can constittionally do that (presumably on grounds that it is not good for the morale of those in the armed services), then why can't it fire chaplains who suggest that many members of the armed services are damned to eternal perdition? sandy ___ 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner ! __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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: Free speech for chaplains
Rick asks: By the way, am I too sensitive or do I perceive a certain animus toward evangelicals in this discussion? Not surprisingly, perhaps, my initial posting was generated by an evangelical memorial sermon, presumably an "official" activity on the Navy ship where it occurred,that appeared to suggest that all Jews are subject to the "wrath of God" and, I presume, damned. Would it be fair to say that anyone who has such views, even if they are sincerely held and based on their best understanding of the Gospel, has "a certain animus" to stiff-necked Jews who resist conversion? If one answers "no" to this question, then I think that is the correct answer to Rick's question. If yes, then ditto. sandy ___ 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: Free speech for chaplains
For what it's worth in this discussion, I have now found several stories on-line about Klingenschmitt that report, among other things, that he was a strenuous advocate for a Jewish sailor for whom the Navy had not supplied sufficient kosher food aboard ship. See, e.g., http://www.persuade.tv/againstgoliath/NavyChaplainDailyPress1May 05WardSanderson.pdf#search='klingenschmitt'. On 12 Jul 2005 at 13:24, Sanford Levinson wrote: Rick asks: By the way, am I too sensitive or do I perceive a certain animus toward evangelicals in this discussion? Not surprisingly, perhaps, my initial posting was generated by an evangelical memorial sermon, presumably an official activity on the Navy ship where it occurred,that appeared to suggest that all Jews are subject to the wrath of God and, I presume, damned. Would it be fair to say that anyone who has such views, even if they are sincerely held and based on their best understanding of the Gospel, has a certain animus to stiff-necked Jews who resist conversion? If one answers no to this question, then I think that is the correct answer to Rick's question. If yes, then ditto. sandy Ira C. (Chip) Lupu F. Elwood Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 (202) 994-7053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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: Free speech for chaplains
Martin Marty had a short piece on the issue of military chaplains in his Sightings from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School this week. If you are interested, I have pasted it below: Sightings 7/11/05 The Decline of Military Chaplaincy -- Martin E. Marty Sighting military chaplains these days demands strong binoculars -- chaplains are distant and few -- as well as measures of attention that most citizens lack. But to focus in on a sample: Forward offers a cover story called http://www.forward.com/articles/3367Military Services Hit Hard by Chaplain Shortage. It features a very rare rabbi-to-be, Andrew Goodman, who may be heading for Navy chaplaincy. A published table shows how desperate is the Jewish case: While 2.3 percent of Americans are Jewish, and while Jews are slightly better represented in the military than many other groups, says Nathaniel Popper in the story, only 1 percent -- 29 of 2,850 chaplains in all the services -- are Jewish. And the prospects for increasing the percentage are poor. Popper lists several reasons for this low number. First, there is a general clerical shortage, so there are few clerics or rabbis to spare. Second, salaries are low. A cute line from the article: Higher salaries [are] available to rabbis outside the military -- an incentive that doesn't exist for many Protestant clergymen [sic], who generally start in lower paying positions outside the service. Moving right along, Popper also lists fears of war and, even more to the fore, ideological issues. The kind of young Jews who would be heading to the rabbinate are the kind of candidates who joined non-Jewish leaders massively opposed to the Iraq invasion and war. (They seem to have been less opposed to the pursuit of terrorists in Afghanistan.) Popper takes note of Daniella Kolodny, an active-duty rabbi chaplain in the National Naval Medical Center near Washington, D.C. She rues the fact that Christian cultures in the military tend to freeze out Jews, but she's far from Baghdad and is not sure she'll sign up herself for a second stint. The plaints of Jewish service people, Jewish leaders, non-Jewish friends of Judaism, and people who care for all souls in the military are well reported on in Popper's article. They inspire reflection. When writing on the period of World War II in my book The Noise of Conflict, I had occasion to keep up on chaplaincy, and I've tried to do so ever since. The contrasts between that time and the present are awesome; World War II was a believed-in war in which the whole populace was engaged, including many conscientious objectors who took their turns at civilian relief work. This year my wife and I have been playing a spying game we invite others to play. If you are not members of a military family, participants in military culture, or living near a military base: Aside from airport security line inconveniences, what signs -- anywhere, among anyone -- do you find that we are at war? Decals to Support Our Troops are cheap and meaningless. What are we doing without? The cynics (or realists) might say that our grandchildren will be inconvenienced by the debt we are amassing, but most of the action is as distant as the rationale is fading. Given that outlook, why do I write mournfully about chaplain shortages? For half a century, from back when I was doing artwork for a denominational chaplaincy service, to the present, I have had empathy for chaplains. They carry dual allegiance, and minister to a passing parade of those who deserve care. They suffer great risk, and are bearers of solace in the worst of circumstances. Popper reports on a caste designated as critical shortage chaplain recruiters. Chaplains, he comments, are aging. Are they disappearing? Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, upcoming events, publications, and contact information can be found at http://www.illuminos.comwww.illuminos.com. -- Sightings comes from the http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Submissions policy Sightings welcomes submissions of 500 to 750 words in length that seek to illuminate and interpret the forces of faith in a pluralist society. http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/index.shtmlPrevious columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. The editor also encourages new approaches to issues related to religion and public life. Attribution Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Sightings, and the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Contact information Please send all inquiries, comments, and submissions to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Jeremy Biles, managing editor of Sightings, at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription at the Sightings
RE: Free speech for chaplains
Rick writes: If I were on a road heading for a cliff, I would want to be told that the road I was on was bad and that another road was good. The same is true of the spiritual roads I travel. If Iwere heading for Hell, I would not want a chaplain to comfort me and tell me that everything was fine and dandy. I would want him to help me get off the wrong road andon the right road. * I confess that I think thatRick isright. In an essay published in Wrestling With Diversity, I note my own childhood in Hendersonville, NC, where some of my friends did indeed try to "help me" in the way that Rick suggests. I obviously didn't accept the help, but I did not in fact resent the effort, since I had no doubt about its motivation (and, as a matter of fact, they didn't press the point once it was clear that I was not going to convert). That being said, I still resent similar efforts coming from those who are not my friends, especially when if they occur in "official" settings. sandy ___ 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: Free speech for chaplains
Sandy helps illustrate my point. There are some soldiers, like Sandy, who do not wish chaplains to try to save them. They believe they are just fine the way they are thanks.But there are other soldiers, perhaps likeI once was,who are searching forGod and for salvation and want chaplains to show them the way. Perhaps we need both kinds of chaplains in the armed services, but we should not allow one kind of soldier to have a heckler's veto over chaplains who might be meeting the needs of other kinds of soldiers. Nor should the EC be interpreted to allow the military to serve as a board of acceptable theology for chaplains. There are literally millions of Christians, like me,who bless the day some one--often a stranger--explained the doctrine of salvation by faith to them. Thank God forall the busybodies who took the time to throw a lifeline to wretches like me!If I were a soldier whisked away from my home town and perhaps facing death beyond the next turn in the road, I would want a chaplain who would not hesitate to preach Christ andsalvationto me. RickSanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick writes: If I were on a road heading for a cliff, I would want to be told that the road I was on was bad and that another road was good. The same is true of the spiritual roads I travel. If Iwere heading for Hell, I would not want a chaplain to comfort me and tell me that everything was fine and dandy. I would want him to help me get off the wrong road andon the right road. * I confess that I think thatRick isright. In an essay published in Wrestling With Diversity, I note my own childhood in Hendersonville, NC, where some of my friends did indeed try to "help me" in the way that Rick suggests. I obviously didn't accept the help, but I did not in fact resent the effort, since I had no doubt about its motivation (and, as a matter of fact, they didn't press the point once it was clear that I was not going to convert). That being said, I still resent similar efforts coming from those who are not my friends, especially when if they occur in "official" settings. sandy___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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or nu! mbered." --The Prisoner Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.___ 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.
