Free speech for chaplains

[Paul Finkelman]

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 the government 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 <stevesan at umich.edu> 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: 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 (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 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.
>


-- 
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)

Paul-Finkelman at utulsa.edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050712/f78ec76c/attachment.html