Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"

Sun Oct 1 10:07:40 PDT 2006

Disclaimer:  Any views expressed below are my own and do not necessarily
reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy or the Navy
Chaplain Corps.

Professor Guinn has called attention to something I've been wondering about
since I first saw this particular line of argument made in Chaplain
Klingenschmitt's "War Against Christians" presentation (available on his
website at http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy2/WACspeech.ppt ).  In the quoted
passage from my paper, I reported on questions asked of the Secretary of the
Navy by the Speaker of the House in 1859 regarding whether there were any
requirements for chaplains to literally *read* prayers, follow any partcular
liturgy, or whether "non-Episcopal chaplains had to follow the Episcopal
liturgy."  I did not describe, nor do I recall finding, any evidence that
official Navy policy at the time actually included such requirements.  

As quoted below, I did report that the Secretary explained in his reply to
the Speaker that "he was not aware that the instruction to 'read' had ever
been construed to require a literal reading from a particular prayer book .
. . ."  In other words, even if there had been a policy requiring
"non-Episcopal chaplains . . . to follow the Episcopal liturgy," much less a
mandatory requirement that prayers be read from the Episcopal Book of Common
Prayer, the Secretary didn't know about it.  Just to make sure there would
be no misunderstanding in the future, he issued orders clarifying that there
was no such policy and a chaplain could "conduct public worship according to
the manner and forms of the church of which he may be a member."  

Even so, my article is cited in apparent support of the proposition that use
of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer "was once seen as 'mandatory' for all
chaplains."  I do not, however, think what I wrote supports that conclusion,
and I do not recall finding support for it in any of the materials I
reviewed or cited.  Of course, other historical sources may have more
information on this particular point, but I don't.

By the way, while the quoted passage from page 226 of my paper is reproduced
accurately enough below, in context it is followed immediately by these
words beginning at the bottom of that page:

While conducting worship has always been one of a military chaplain's
duties, protecting the rights of others to freely exercise their faith also
predates the Constitution and Bill of Rights. [FN59] The earliest chaplains,
like their modern-day counterparts, served a military population
representing a variety of faith groups or no faith at all. [FN60] One author
asserts that the "pattern for chaplain ministry to soldiers of different
religious backgrounds was set in the seventeenth century, from the time the
first militia units drilled at Jamestown, Plymouth, Boston and New York."
[FN61]

Very respectfully,

    Bill Wildhack
Member, Florida Bar and bar of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida
Minister of Word and Sacrament, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve 

P.S.  For those who might be interested in seeing more of my paper for the
larger context of the quoted section and the content of the footnotes, the
rest of the cite is: Navy Chaplains at the Crossroads: Navigating the
Intersection of Free Speech, Free Exercise, Establishment, and Equal
Protection, 51 Naval L. Rev. 217 (2005). 

  _____  

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of David E. Guinn
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:57 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"

I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of argument -- that the only
point of concern is to "protect the chaplain" -- as opposed to serve the
religious needs and interest of our armed forces.

Not only are these interpretations of history and law enormously biased and
inaccurate, they are offensive.  If the chaplaincy's purpose is solely to
promote Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sectarian faith than perhaps Madison was
correct in arguing that Congress' decision to hire chaplains was wrong and
should now be recended.

David

  _____  

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Gordon James
Klingenschmitt
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:16 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray "In Jesus Name"

Excellent comment Professor Scarberry, 

But now that the policy is rescinded, so is any distinction between "public
worship at divine services" and "public worship at command ceremonies" and
so the law (once again) protects the chaplain at all events whenever he
prays...prayer itself is restored as an act of "public worship" the same way
it always had been since 1860.

The origins of the 1860 law were described recently by our new friend CDR
Wildhack, who wrote in the Naval Law Review Vol 51 (2003):  

"As in our day, questions about the manner and forms of worship have also
long been a part of the history of the Chaplain Corps. Early regulations
specified that the duties of chaplains included having to 'read' prayers
(53). In 1859, the Speaker of the House of Representatives asked the
Secretary of the Navy whether chaplains were required to 'read' prayers or
follow any particular forms or ceremony in leading worship, and if the Navy
had any evidence of a requirement that non-Episcopal chaplains had to follow
the Episcopal liturgy (54).  In replying, the Secretary explained that he
was not aware that the instruction to 'read' had ever been construed to
require a literal reading from a particular prayer book, but rather as a
requirement that prayers be offered aloud without specifying they be read
from a book, written down by the chaplain beforehand to be read later, or
offered extemporaneously (55). To further reassure the Speaker and his
colleagues in Congress, the Secretary announced a new order officially
interpreting the requirement that prayers be 'read' to mean that prayers be
'offered,' thus leaving the chaplain free to follow the dictates of his own
religious tradition.(56) Perhaps in response to such communication with
Congress, new Navy Regulations adopted in 1860 included this addition:
"Every chaplain shall be permitted to conduct public worship according to
the manner and forms of the church of which he may be a member."(57) No
longer merely a regulation, that language is now in force as part of the
United States Code.(58)"  

Thanks to CDR Wildhack for this insight....But it reveals today's tragic
irony....the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer was once seen as 'mandatory'
for all chaplains...but Congress (wisely) overcame that, to allow
non-Christian chaplains (i.e. first 3 Jewish chaplains appointed by Abe
Lincoln in 1860) total freedom to NOT the use Christian prayer book...and
now in 2006, the policy actually PROHIBITED using the Christian prayer book
in public....the pendulum swung too far...so now Congress has (wisely)
righted itself, to restore religious diversity, allowing any variety of
prayers to be said, instead of punishing Christian prayers while forcing
Christian chaplains to pray Jewish prayers (i.e. theologically sensitive
prayers).  

Chaplain Klingenschmitt

"Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:

It seems there is a distinction between "Divine/Religious Services" and
other "command functions." I don't suppose Marty is saying that a chaplain
may not pray in Jesus' name during Divine/Relgious Services. Paragraph 6(c)
does not require that Divine/Religious Services be non-sectarian but only
that religious elements in other command functions be non-sectarian. If
Divine/Religious Services were required to be nonsectarian then they
couldn't be divine services for the chaplain's particular faith; note that
the chaplains are required to "provide ministry to those of their own faith"
which rules out nonsectarian requirements for such ministry whether or not
that ministry occurs in a Divine/Religious Service. I suppose there could be
a serious question whether a particular memorial service for a deceased
sailor (the context, I believe of Chaplain Klingenschmitt's disagreement
with the Navy) is a Divine/Religious Service or instead a different kind of
remembrance of the sailor. Whether nonsectarian prayer would be required
might depend on how the event was classified, I think.

Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine

  _____  

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman1/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/ev
t=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com> PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2¢/min or less. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20061001/32119e79/attachment.html