Mediaboss Marketing

When I first read the recently published article by Chaplain (Major) David Evans entitled, Starting again: A call for chaplains to reconcile and properly support LGBTQI+ soldiers, my initial response was one of appreciation. I shared the article on Facebook and stated, The entire First Amendment is brought to bear in this one publication. A sensitive but important discussion. Chaplain Evans appropriately states, A chaplain is at the service of all soldiers. This is absolutely true. The oath I have taken to support and defend the Constitution of the United States means my charge as a chaplain a religious leader is to champion the free exercise of religion that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects. However, each chaplains interpretation of sacred texts and traditions pertaining to the capability of performing religious rites is a matter of the free exercise of religion.

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1300.17, Religious Liberty in the Military Services states, no Service member may require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain. At the core of the DoDI is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Free Exercise Clause and the associated Establishment Clause together comprise the concept of freedom of religion inherent in the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause is the first segment which states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The Free Exercise Clause is the second segment which estates, [Congress shall make no law] prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, the Establishment Clause prevents the state and federal governments from mandating religious practices. In contrast, the Free Exercise Clause prevents state and federal governments from inhibiting the religious practices of individuals.

To the heart of Chaplain Evans article, how the Chaplain Corps supports LGBTQI+ soldiers is of utmost importance. Recent command initiatives to enforce the standard that all persons are treated with dignity and respect are imperative. Existing policy, doctrine and regulation guide the Chaplain Corps and mandate every soldier, dependent and civilian is treated with dignity and respect. Nonetheless, as chaplains care for those whom we serve we must hold fast to our religious convictions in order to be the religious leaders the military requires us to be. If religious convictions do not matter for the religious leader, then there is reason to believe those religious convictions should not matter for anyone. Religious leaders and communities should not only be permitted, but should be encouraged, to interpret their sacred texts and traditions and to act in accordance with those interpretations (so long as their actions are not criminal and do not impinge on the Establishment Clause).

One of the issues at stake is whether or not a persons sexual orientation is a matter of religion. Most religious leaders worldwide believe sexual orientation is a matter of religious importance. The Department of Defense understands individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) which do not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline or health and safety as being protected under the banner of religious liberty (DoDI 1300.17). The argument Chaplain Evans presents is essentially that if the Chaplain Corps is not careful, individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs by chaplains regarding normative practices of sexuality could collectively have an adverse impact on the military. This is a fair caution, but could also be misconstrued. If state and federal governments begin requiring chaplains to transgress sincerely held beliefs, then we will restrict the free exercise of religion of the very people whom we have charged with the task of protecting the free exercise of religion.

In summary, the Chaplain Corps should unequivocally set the standard for treating people with dignity and respect; and there is room for improvement here. However, as chaplains, we should champion the free exercise of religion of those who have taken the oath to serve as chaplains just as much as we champion the free exercise of religion of those for whom we have taken the oath to serve. If we do not account for the free exercise of religion for all soldiers regardless of category, we will undermine our ability to advocate for others.

Chaplain (Capt.) Jordan Henricks is an active duty Army Chaplain currently serving with the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Commentary: The opinions expressed in this article are my personal opinions and do not represent the United States Army or the Army Chaplain Corps

Editors note: This is an op-ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman,haltman@militarytimes.com.

Don't miss the top Army stories, delivered each afternoon

(please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Army Times Daily News Roundup.

Read more here:
Responding to a call for chaplains to reconcile and properly support LGBTQI+ soldiers - ArmyTimes.com

PETITIONS OF THE WEEK ByMitchell Jagodinski on Jun 11, 2021 at 4:27 pm

This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, First Amendment challenges to the use of membership fees by a union or bar association to engage in political speech, as well as the definition of a state tax under the federal Tax Injunction Act.

Two petitions ask the justices to consider the First Amendment implications of professional fees that are used for political and ideological speech. In Baisley v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, an airline employee challenges a fee levied by an airline workers union even though he is not a union member. Under the federal Railway Labor Act, the employees exclusive bargaining representative is the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The employee alleges that the union contracted with his employer, United Airlines, to compel employees to pay fees in an amount equal to union dues. He further alleges that the fees are used to fund the unions ideological and political activities unless a non-member affirmatively opts out of contributing to the unions speech. The employee argues that this practice violates both the Railway Labor Act and the First Amendment. He relies on prior decisions holding that public-sector unions and employers must get an employees affirmative consent before extracting union dues or fees.

Next, in Crowe v. Oregon State Bar, the justices are asked to review the use of mandatory attorney dues by the Oregon State Bar to fund political and ideological speech. The challengers are Oregon attorneys who say the state bar uses the mandatory dues to fund legislative advocacy and other speech on matters of public importance. They ask the court to clarify prior case law on bar-association dues and declare that the Oregon policy is subject to the same exacting First Amendment scrutiny as laws involving subsidized speech by public-sector unions.

Lastly, Healthcare Distribution Alliance v. James asks the court to clarify the difference between state taxes and other types of assessments, such as penalties or fees. New York passed a law imposing an annual surcharge on opioid manufacturers and distributors. The state uses the money to pay for remedial programs related to opioid abuse. Pharmaceutical trade groups challenged the law, arguing that it is unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held that the surcharge is a tax under the federal Tax Injunction Act, which prohibits federal courts from enjoining the collection of state taxes. The trade groups say the 2nd Circuits ruling conflicts with decisions by three other circuits about what constitutes a tax under the TIA.

These and otherpetitions of the weekare below:

Healthcare Distribution Alliance v. James20-1611Issue: Whether the New York Opioid Stewardship Acts surcharge is a tax within the meaning of theTax Injunction Act, despite having features that other circuits repeatedly have held indicative of a punitive fee.

Leontaritis v. United States20-1614Issues: (1) Whether, if a jury is instructed to determine a fact by indicating a unanimous finding beyond a reasonable doubt and does so, the resulting verdict indicates a finding beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to a mere failure to find; and (2) whether, if a jury verdict finds a fact beyond a reasonable doubt, a district courts sentencing decision must accept the jurys determination or instead may base the sentence on its own independent finding that contradicts the jurys.

Baisley v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers20-1643Issue: Whether opt-out procedures for collecting union fees for ideological and political activities violate the First Amendment or theRailway Labor Act.

Nettles v. Midland Funding, LLC20-1673Issues: (1) Whether, underSpokeo, it is sufficient for standing simply to allege a violation of the procedural rights created by theFair Debt Collection Practices Act, as six circuits have held, or must a plaintiff also always allege an additional injury beyond such a violation, as five circuits (including the 7th in this case) have held; and (2) whether some additional injury is required for standing under the Act, whether it is sufficient to allege mental distress or lost time dealing with a violation of the Act, as the 4th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits have held, or whether something more than mental distress or lost time is required, as the 7th (in this case) and 9th Circuits have held.

Crowe v. Oregon State Bar20-1678Issue: Whether the statute that compels attorneys to subsidize Oregon State Bars political and ideological speech is subject to exacting scrutiny.

The rest is here:
Union fees, bar association dues, and the funding of political speech - SCOTUSblog

An attorney who specializes in First Amendment litigation said mediation by a universitys public relations team can cause staff and student media censorship, but it may be necessary for the department to sit in during interviews depending on the sensitivity of the topic.

Greg Greubel is a staff attorney at the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Education, a nonpartisan organization working to protect the rights of faculty and students across the U.S.

Greubel said requiring staffers to forward interview request from student media to Marcom can be discouraging to student journalists, and it also hampers the rights of university employees.

It is a violation of the employees First Amendment rights to have this buffer between speaking to journalists and the university, said Greubel, who spoke about student journalists rights at the virtual convention of the Society of Professional Journalists March 26 .

Greubel said employees are not legally obligated to speak to student journalists, but its necessary they do.

Employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern, Greubel said. They have the right to talk about it, and its actually very important that they do talk about it.

Greubel said he believes employees should not go through Marcom before being interviewed by student media. He said its censorship on the employees end. As a result of that, its secondary censorship on student journalists, he said.

Because they cant speak to you, that means you cant do your work, Greubel said. Its a secondary effect but does it cause censorship? I think so.

Greubel also said having Marcom intervene is a common practice across the country, though it may be an obstacle for student journalists.

If you direct all the communications through some university department, then theyre not going to be able to speak, maybe at all. If they do, its going to be a tarnished version, Greubel said.

Going through department heads strains credibility from employees, he said.

Greubel said having to notify Marcom of an interview request puts the employee on notice that theyre being monitored, in some sense.

If what these communications departments are trying to do is actually facilitate truth-telling through employees views, thats one thing, Greubel said. But if what theyre trying to do is to act as a sort of buffer and require university employees to speak through the same voice, then its a problem.

Veronica Valdes, The Mesquites spring editor-in-chief, said she once experienced Marcom sitting-in during an interview with Mari Fuentes-Martin, vice president of student success and engagement, last fall. Valdes was working on a story about events being rescheduled because of a COVID-19 spike on campus.

Valdes said she was surprised Jeanette De Diemar, vice president for advancement and external relations, attended the interview since she had called De Diemar for guidance on who to contact. De Diemar had said Fuentes-Martin would be the best source.

Valdes was told Fuentes-Martin was a university spokesperson, she said those people shouldnt need to go through Marcom since theyre already a university spokesperson.

De Diemar said choosing if a member of Marcom should sit in depends on the complexity of the story and how helpful marcom can be.

There are occasions where theres an overlap because Im an official university spokesperson, its part of my role, De Diemar said. There are people who by the nature of their role they would have participated in an interview.

De Diemar said this is not a common practice. Determining if a member of the department should sit in depends on the complexity of the story.

Greubel acknowledged it may be appropriate for Marcom to monitor an interview, depending on the topic.

It is naive to say they should never sit in, Greubel said.

Read this article:
University employees have right to speak to student journalists, First Amendment expert says | Texas A&M University-San Antonio | TAMUSA - The...

When President Biden began assembling his Cabinet, several commentators predicted that his presidency would be something of an Obama third term. But now Biden has broken further from those predictions in his budget proposal by gutting the Hyde Amendment a long-held and popular policy that prevents federal taxpayer dollars from directly funding abortions.

The Obama administration maintained this commonsense compromise even when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress; and if theyre smart and reasonable, some congressional Democrats today will wake up and do the same.

The Hyde Amendment first passed in 1976 with bipartisan support. In fact,a majorityof the House members who voted for it were Democrats. The Supreme Courtupheldthe provision in 1980, and its been a point of strong agreement for many Americans, both pro-life and pro-choice, long since.

AsSlatedetailedin the debate sparked by Bidens 2019 flip-flop, poll after poll shows that a strong majority of Americans consistently support the Hyde Amendment.Slatefound that the average [polling] gap between the pro-funding and anti-funding positions is 19 percentage points, and that, even among self-identified Democrats, the polling gap inoppositionto the Hyde Amendment lingered in mere single digits. This data is well-reflected in state abortion policy, too. Efforts to channel state tax dollars (which are not touched by the Hyde Amendment) directly toward abortions have succeeded in onlyseven state legislatures.

President Biden has stepped far beyondRoe v. Wadesright to privacy when he defends Hyde bysayingabortion-seeking women also need the ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right via taxpayer financial support. This logic doesnt hold at all.

America is a free country where we enjoy a great many rights, such as a First Amendment right to publish paid ads promoting our policy views free from government censorship, and a Second Amendment right to own a handgun. But it does not follow that we also have a right to force other people to pay for those activities. No serious person believes that. And this principle certainly holds true for forcing Americans to pay for abortions.

The logical inconsistency trend in anti-Hyde abortion activism extends tomanywidely-readcommentatorstrying to discredit the Hyde Amendment by calling it a decades-old or decades-long ban, as if that is a discrediting factor or an indication of bad policy. Should we also pejoratively refer toRoe v. Wadeas decades-old? These journalists and activists would surely say no. The double standard is clear.

The radicals trying to repeal the Hyde Amendment are not pro-choice. They are simply pro-abortion.

DeniseBurkeis senior counsel atAlliance Defending Freedom(@Alliance Defends).

Go here to see the original:
Biden's new proposal on the Hyde Amendment is illogical, unpopular | TheHill - The Hill

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Today, Fair Elections Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit to challenge Florida Senate Bill 90, an omnibus voting rights bill that, among other things, requires civic organizations engaged in voter registration activities to provide misleading information to voters that the organization might not submit their registration application on time and to direct voters to the online registration portal. The law imposes this requirement even though Florida already has some of the most onerous third-party voter registration laws in the country, imposes hefty penalties for non-compliance, and has not had any significant issues with untimely applications across the state.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters, Corp. and HeadCount, two nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations that focus their registration efforts on new voters, particularly youth, communities of color, and returning citizens. The complaint challenges the new laws misleading disclaimer and disclosure requirements and alleges that the new law is void for vagueness under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, compels speech in violation of the First Amendment, and prevents organizations from exercising their First Amendment expressive and associational rights.

"HeadCount has served Florida voters for 16 years, and our volunteers have established deep roots and trust throughout the state." said Tappan Vickery, Director of Voter Engagement for HeadCount, "We believe that peer-based community voter registration outreach is essential to democracy and groups like ours must meet voters where they are. The new requirements not only discredit our work but put democracy itself at risk."

Voter registration organizations serve their communities by building trusted relationships with Floridians for whom voting and participation may not otherwise be accessible, said Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director and senior counsel at Fair Elections Center. We are bringing this lawsuit to protect our clients right to organize through voter registration activities, communicating their message that our democracy works better when all our voices are heard. According to one of Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters founders and officers, Sheila Singleton, Florida Senate Bill 90 is just the latest attempt by the politicians in Tallahassee to entrench their power by making it more and more difficult for people to vote. Registering to vote is the first critical step in having ones voice heard and this law creates serious obstacles to people trying to do just that. Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters, along with our partners across the state, will continue to challenge this unconstitutional law and stand up for the voting rights of all Floridians.

Unfortunately, Floridas legislature has a history of targeting community voter registration organizations with unconstitutional and irrational regulations that violate the First Amendment. SB 90 is no different, especially considering its enactment during a legislative session marked by little public input and other laws criminalizing Floridians exercise of their First Amendment freedoms, adds Emma Bellamy, senior staff attorney for voting rights at the Southern Poverty Law Center. We hope the Court recognizes that protecting the First Amendment and voter registration activities is a non-partisan issue and vital for the continuation of a robust and free democracy.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Read the complaint here.

Continued here:
Voting Rights Groups Sue to Block New Restrictions that Make Voter Registration Much Harder in Florida - Southern Poverty Law Center