In a Washington Post article published
on the 6th, David Gibson describes the recent judiciary ruling by
District Court Judge Martin Hoffman regarding “imprecatory” or “curse” prayers.
The case in question was brought by Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), with the goal of removing what
Weinstein described as undue religious influence in the armed forces. The lawsuit
was directed at a former Navy chaplain named Klingenschmitt, who posted on his
website, urging followers to prey for the MRFF’s downfall. Judge Hoffman ended
up ruling in favor of the defendant in this case, arguing that there was no
evidence that recent acts of vandalism of Weinstein’s property were connected
to the prayer in question. Weinstein responded “We are disappointed in the
ruling because we believe the judge made a mistake in not understanding that
imprecatory prayers are code words for trolling for assassins for the Weinstein
family, I don’t think the judge understood that these are not regular prayers.”
Imprecatory prayers are nothing new in the public forum of America, and have
garnered a lot of attention since President Obama was elected.
That said,
this case does raise important questions which were left unaddressed in the
ruling. Chief among these questions is the protection such prayers have under
the First Amendment regarding the freedom of speech and religion.
As much as it chafes me, I have to
agree with Judge Hoffmans ruling. The protection afforded such religious
rhetoric ties the states hands until a clear connection between the prayer in
question and any criminal acts can be established. That said, I believe that
the ruling could have gone in favor of Weinstein if Klingenschmitt were still
an acting Navy chaplain. If that were the case, Weinstein could argue an establishment
clause violation. The difference between the two situations arises out of the
fact that as an active chaplain, Klingenschmitt would be representing the Government
and the conversation would no longer be in an open forum. One counter argument
to this position would be the precedent of “civic deism,” even though that
concept has only been used to justify such things as opening prayers before congressional
meetings and the presence of the 10 commandments in Courthouses. I would
counter such an argument by raising the question of the intended role of the
Chaplain within the structure of the armed forces, and whether such prayers
fell within the scope of his positions duties, especially if that prayer was
directed at another member of the armed services.
No comments:
Post a Comment