Chaplains and public funds

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I don't think this is just a question of chaplains using public
funds.  Even if all chaplains were funded by private entities, the
military would still have to play an important role in selecting which
ones may accompany the troops, providing them with housing and
protection, and so on.  (The matter may be less complex when soldiers
are on base and can easily go off it to go to church, but that of course
won't always be the case.)  So some degree of entanglement of a sort
that would normally violate the Establishment Clause would be present
even if no government salaries were involved.

	Conversely, even if the chaplains weren't soldiers, the military
would have ample reason to limit chaplains' speech on military property
to soldiers, in order to maintain morale and military effectiveness,
just as it has ample reason to limit its soldiers' and officers' speech.

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Sanders
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:33 AM
> To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: 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:  stevesan at umich.edu
> Wed: http://www.stevesanders.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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.
>