Judge Rules it is OK to Pray for Harm To Come To Others
Earlier this month a District Judge in Dallas ruled that it
is legal to ask God to do harm to another person, as long as no one is actually
threatened or harmed.
Here is a summary of the case in question. A lawsuit brought by a Jewish agnostic
(Mike Weinstein) against a former Navy chaplain (Gordon Klingenschmitt) stated
that “curse” prayers, like those in Psalm 109, were used to incite others to do
harm to the agnostic and his family. The case was dismissed by the Dallas District
Court Judge who ruled that there was no evidence that prayers by the Navy
chaplain were connected to threats made against Weinstein. Weinstein is also the founder of the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
From our discussions of First Amendment history this case is
troubling. Does the First
Amendment protect speech despite the harms it may cause? Under what circumstances should
the court regulate speech that fosters or facilitates violence, hate or harm to
another human being? Should such
speech be allowed in public religious language or prayers?
Here are a few more facts about the case. Weinstein is a former Air Force lawyer
who started the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to battle with
what he sees as undue religious influence in the armed forces. Klingenschmitt, the Navy endorsed
chaplain, posted a prayer on his website urging followers to pray for the
downfall of the MRFF. The prayer
quoted from Psalm 109 calls for the death of an opponent and curses on his
widow and children. After the ruling
Klingenschmitt said “I praise God for religious freedom because the judge
declared it’s OK to pray imprecatory prayers and quote Psalm 109.”
Weinstein explained that he received death threats, his
house painted with vile words and symbols and his windows have been shot
out. “A very aggressive
appeal is highly likely,” he says.
Weinstein added, “I don’t think the judge understood that these are not
regular prayers” but compared imprecatory prayers to a radical Islamic fatwa.
John W. Whitehead, President of the Rutherford Institute, a
legal advocacy group that helped defend the chaplain and the group he
represents said, “Thankfully, the district court recognized that if people are
forced to stop offering imprecatory prayers, half the churches, synagogues and
mosques in this country will have to be shut down.”
In my opinion, this case sets a dangerous precedence. Public speech that expresses hatred can
inflict potential harm – harms we have seen regularly in the news. Religious zealots, as well as those strong
civic minded individuals who use religiously grounded beliefs (or no religious
belief) to distort and devalue human beings offer new opportunities for the
courts to consider, more carefully how equal protections will be granted.
How could the judge in this case rule that the threats and vandalism
Mr. Weinstein experienced not be considered to have stemmed from the speech Mr.
Klingerschmitt and his group uttered?
14 comments:
I agree with the court in this decision. This, to me, is a case of speech. I don't want the government controlling what I can and cannot pray. People often, when angry at someone or something, say "God dammit!" And while in most cases it is a curse (as in profanity), sometimes it might be a legitimate prayer. Should the prayer have been posted on a website? Probably not, but he still has the right to free speech.
This ruling is a little funny to me in that it seems to reference God as a potentially active agent in the case and seems to make a statement (although I'm not sure what exactly that statement is) about the existence of God. Does the judge mean that it is legal for a person to pray to God, willing that God (who does indeed exists as an ontological category)doesn't actually follow through with the punishment? Or does the judge mean to suggest that curse prayers are legal because they pose no real threat to the individual threatened and that God is not a legitimate actor in the situation. Either way the case seems to be making some kind of statement about the existence of God and the role of God in such cases.
I think there are two important issues at hand in this case. The first is that despite the fact that the prayer was offered and threats were made against Weinstein there was apparently no evidence to connect the two events. The people that were coming after him may have been doing so in relation to the prayer; they also may have been doing so just because they disagreed with the organization that he set up. Second even if they were coming for him because of the prayer I think they should have to show that the intent of the prayer was to incite the violence. Otherwise we will have the courts ruling on things like whether the Beatles should be in jail with Charles Manson because they wrote Helter Skelter.
Angela makes a good point. Though the prayer may have been less than kind, there seems to be nothing that connects the prayer with the threats and vandalism. Government-regulated prayer is not constitutional, so unless the two acts could be connected, I think the court had to rule the way it did. Certainly, if this prayer had occurred during the vandalism (a kind of cheer-leading, if you will), then there might be more to discuss, but as it stands, I think the court ruled correctly.
Angela makes a good point. Though the prayer may have been less than kind, there seems to be nothing that connects the prayer with the threats and vandalism. Government-regulated prayer is not constitutional, so unless the two acts could be connected, I think the court had to rule the way it did. Certainly, if this prayer had occurred during the vandalism (a kind of cheer-leading, if you will), then there might be more to discuss, but as it stands, I think the court ruled correctly.
In order to win his case, Weinstein had to prove that the prayer by Klingenschmitt directly incited people to destroy his property, no small feat in a court of law. Another thing that hurts his case is the fact that the prayer was posted on Klingenschmitt's website, which means he could have said just about anything. Praying for the downfall of an organization is quite tame compared to some of the hate sites that have been around for a long time. While unseemly, Klingenschmitt's free speech was protected by the court in their decision.
Let me start by stating I think it is completely untrue and sad that John Whitehead believes so many religious institutions in this country practice "imprecatory prayers."
Let us keep in mind that freedom of speech is not absolute. If the speech is a call to violent action against an individual it is not protected speech. However, I have to agree with Angela that if there is no way to connect these inflammatory prayers to the vandalism and threats I see why the case was decided this way.
If the prayers had been tied to the violence, this should not be considered constitutional as a freedom of exercise. As in the Bob Jones case, the government has a compelling interest to keep the peace and advance tolerance in the country.
This point has been brought up in earlier comments and I have to agree with it. That since the court could not directly connect the vandalism to the prayer there is no way to build a direct link between the two, and establish that the prayer was the cause of the violence. This case involves the free speech of Klingenschmitt and to me the court rule in the correct way. The prayer was on a public website where people chose to look at the prayer and then it was up to the individual, and according to Brandenburg v Ohio the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless there is a direct link between the speech and the probably incitement of action that is against the law. The court has to be careful with this ruling, if we restrict the idea of speech that incite people to action, we could also be restricting speeches that call to action for things like environmental rights and others.
This is definitely a sticky area. I was 100% on the side against these types of prayers, but then I heard about the part where other religions use "harmful" prayers as well. I still think it was wrong for the judge to rule it is ok, mainly because this prayer was said by a military official. The military should not be condoning one religion or another and by quoting psalms he is obviously favoring Christianity. Could this possibly be an establishment clause issue?
LOL The Court cases about religion amazes me.I have to agree with the court decision because no matter how you look at this situation, the court being able to control what a person prays about is definitely a violation of freedom of speech. I also believe this would lead us back to decades ago where people were being punished for saying and doing insane things, for instance The Salem Witch Trials. (Lol) Letting the court decided what you can pray about is crazy and will eventually cause more problems. Words can hold value, therefore if something was to happen to someone and you were known for wishing harm to this person, I think without a doubt you should be put under investigation and most likely you will. Bottom line people wish bad things on people all the time and it would be foolish to get the courts involved in something so petty.
The argument being waged in this blog is very persuasive. It does seem as if a person should have the right to pray for any desire they wish regardless of whether it is good or evil. However we must remember that most religions were developed and established on the corpses of innocent. Prayer is the initiation of a sequence of actions and therefore a delicate balance should be observed and maintained.
I am in agreement with Alicia. The ruling is peculiar. God does seem to be viewed as an acting part in the case if interpreted a specific way. God's role in the case would seem active if the curse prayer is said and nothing happens on God's part and it is not considered illegal or if the curse prayer is said and something does happen on God's part and it is considered illegal. What would have changed the ruling... God's role or the role of humans reacting to the prayer? This is a tricky case, it would be interested to talk with the ruling judge and pick his brain about the ruling and case.
I agree with court's decision.One cannot stop someone from praying "harm" for another person. It is not something that can be regulated or caught so because of that reason i think its Ok. We also cant take free speech away from the individuals who at times feel like doing "harm" prayers. I believe in the thing called Karma, and by doing "harm" prayers, one is just creating bad karma for himself/herself. So i don't think its an issue and court's definitely should have no say-so in this matter.
Post a Comment