Free speech for chaplains

[Newsom Michael]

Mark, I wonder whether the special needs that the military has for
social cohesion trump any notion of a "regular" worship service.  A
"regular" military religious service may be different in kind from a
"regular" non-military religious service, at least for some purposes,
largely having to do with cohesion and morale.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:45 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Free speech for chaplains

 

Much depends on context. If a regular worship service is announced as a
Christian service, then those who attend should not be surprised to find
that Christian doctrines are taught, even doctrines that may offend some
non-Christians. At a funeral one might expect the chaplain not to
emphasize Christian doctrines that could be seen as insulting by a
reasonable non-Christian, because the funeral should allow the deceased
soldier's comrades of all faiths to come, to pay honor, and to leave
with a sense of cohesion. It's easy enough to say that forgiveness is
needed and that it is available through Christ, without adding, "And all
you who don't believe in Christ will burn in Hell."

 

Although the military need not (and should not) employ a chaplain who
will harm discipline, morale and unit cohesion, I think we need to
remember that the chaplains are there primarily to serve the religious
needs of the soldiers, not primarily to serve the needs of the State.

 

Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine University School of Law

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:mnewsom at law.howard.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:22 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Free speech for chaplains

 

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:SLevinson at law.utexas.edu] 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050715/74985c35/attachment.htm