# Panetta and the DoD banning God from military funerals **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2011, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809 "2011-07-12T23:35:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/41 "2011-07-14T14:55:51Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > I agree with the sentiment, but that’s just not how funerals work in this country. Legally it doesn’t really matter what the decedent wanted or pre-planned for their funeral; their next-of-kin must still sign off on it and can arrange whatever type of funeral s/he want (& can pay for). One can do stuff like write your funeral plans into your will and make any bequests contingent on your heirs following your instructions or have legal instruments drawn up specifying who’s to be regarded as your “next-of-kin” and have authority over the disposition of your remains. > > In **leftfield6** ’s example if push came to shove his parents would loose in every fight (or at least court fights) they picked with his wife. If he was unmarried (& lacked adult children) he could still have his lawyer draw up documents designating a 3rd party to have control over his remains. His parents would still probally loose in a court case, but it wouldn’t be as forgone a conclusion than it would be if it was his wife they were fighting with. Yeah it is a problem as the deceased is dead. But if he already has a funeral arranged, then his wishes as expressed to the funeral parlor should be honored, or his will. ---
**Author:** ![DrLad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8797f3/32.png) [@DrLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrLad)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/42 "2011-07-18T15:37:07Z")
I have been looking for info on this as well. I found the link to a Houston Chronicle article about a law suit against the director of the Veterans’ Cemetery. The director was following the guidelines that say: “The guidelines state that military honors at funerals should consist only of the “core elements” of flag folding, presentation of the flag to survivors, playing of Taps and a rifle salute. Any additions can be made only at the request of the veteran’s family.” She stopped some volunteers from saying “God Bless You” and she did not allow honor guards say a prayer without the approval of the deceased veteran family’s approval. But there is a catch-22 because the honor guards are not allowed to submit any text to the family for their approval. It sounds like a case of someone following guidelines that were written to protect families from possible adversity, but the guidelines are too restrictive. Interesting situation when the Supreme Court allows for anti-gay demonstrations at funerals because of freedom of speech. Read more: [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7635190.html#ixzz1STHQuruo](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7635190.html#ixzz1STHQuruo) ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/43 "2011-07-18T15:51:31Z")
In the end it all comes down to respect. Having a student mention God in a graduation speech is fine, but having a speaker set aside for an “invocation” in a public school thank Jesus in the third person is disrespectful. Pardon me but I don’t want you to assume that I have the same beliefs as you. Asking the family before you include God in a service is just simple respect, there really should be no need for courts to be involved. And of course it goes both ways, Atheists shouldn’t make wise cracks about head scarves, or yarmulkes, or ashes on the forehead. or other displays of an individual’s religious beliefs. ETA: and there is nothing wrong in just closing your eyes and shutting your mouth when someone says grace before a meal at their house. If they do it at your house without asking your permissions it’s something else. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/44 "2011-07-29T10:37:51Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > In the end it all comes down to respect. Having a student mention God in a graduation speech is fine, but having a speaker set aside for an “invocation” in a public school thank Jesus in the third person is disrespectful. Pardon me but I don’t want you to assume that I have the same beliefs as you. > > Asking the family before you include God in a service is just simple respect, there really should be no need for courts to be involved. > > And of course it goes both ways, Atheists shouldn’t make wise cracks about head scarves, or yarmulkes, or ashes on the forehead. or other displays of an individual’s religious beliefs. > > ETA: and there is nothing wrong in just closing your eyes and shutting your mouth when someone says grace before a meal at their house. If they do it at your house without asking your permissions it’s something else. And there it is… IMHO, **The** _ **best** _ post, in this thread! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2011, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/45 "2011-07-31T04:17:27Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I think the simplest explanation is an overly risk-averse bureaucrat, but this might not be the case, so I will be watching. She was the director of four other National Cemeteries before this one (including Jacksonville, the Jesusest city in Florida), so one would have thought that the issue would have come up before if that were the case. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2011, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/46 "2011-07-31T06:19:36Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > But if your family is Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or any of several other faiths, preventing prayer at a funeral by bureaucratic decree would not only not be appreciated - it would be unconstitutional. > > I do not give up my right to the free exercise of religion merely by stepping onto federally owned property. That is fairly well settled law in and of itself - it is why there was a chaplain on my ship in the Navy, why there are worship facilities in federal prisons, and why the aforementioned restraining order was filed protecting the pastor’s right to invoke Jesus at the Memorial Day ceremony at the cemetery. And when somebody actually does this, I’ll be standing alongside you to protest – as, for example, the secondary issue of the bureaucrat who wanted only “ceremonial Deist” invocations at the cemetery in question. On the primary issue, it’s my contention that any displays of the free exercise of religion at a public ceremony conducted for a given individual or family should conform to the reasonable request of the person or family for whom the public ceremony was conducted – that one’s freedom of speech and free exercise rights do not extend to imposing one’s beliefs on a ceremony honoring or at the behest of another – and that no organized denominational body would claim that they do so extend. Do we differ here? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2011, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/47 "2011-07-31T06:21:26Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > In the end it all comes down to respect. Having a student mention God in a graduation speech is fine, but having a speaker set aside for an “invocation” in a public school thank Jesus in the third person is disrespectful. Pardon me but I don’t want you to assume that I have the same beliefs as you. > > Asking the family before you include God in a service is just simple respect, there really should be no need for courts to be involved. > > And of course it goes both ways, Atheists shouldn’t make wise cracks about head scarves, or yarmulkes, or ashes on the forehead. or other displays of an individual’s religious beliefs. > > ETA: and there is nothing wrong in just closing your eyes and shutting your mouth when someone says grace before a meal at their house. If they do it at your house without asking your permissions it’s something else. Well said. Of course respect for others or common courtesy is out of style these days… ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/48 "2011-09-23T17:51:39Z")
I’m bumping the thread because there has been a [mediated settlement](http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/VA-agrees-not-to-censor-prayer-at-Houston-cemetery-2184259.php) in the case. > [@](#): > > Under the settlement, VA would agree “not to ban, regulate or otherwise interfere with prayers, recitations, or words of religious expression absent family objection” and to allow veterans’ families to hold services with any religious or secular content they desire. > > VA also agrees not to edit or control private religious speech by speakers at VA-sponsored ceremonies or events and pledges to return a Bible, cross and Star of David to the cemetery’s chapel, which must remain open and not be used for storage or referred to as a meeting facility. > > The Bible, cross and star would be placed “on an open shelf within, but to the side of, the Chapel, where they would be accessible and available for use by families,” the documents state. > > Local members of Veterans of Foreign Wars District 4 and Houston National Memorial Ladies would resign their positions as official VA volunteers, according to the agreement. They would be free to provide their own texts of recitations to funeral homes so that veterans’ families can decide if they would like these groups to provide any services at the cemetery. > > VA would not interfere in the distribution of condolence cards or gifts containing religious messages or viewpoints and would not ban religious words in oral communications between the volunteers and veteran’s families. This settlement seems fair to me. Having the VFW and Memorial Ladies resign as VA volunteers reinforces their status as private citizens. Thus the government cannot constitutionally control their speech if families choose to include them in the funeral service. Also, there should be a chapel available at these cemeteries for those that require one, and that space should be separate from other meeting space. I don’t think that is a particularly controversial point. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/49 "2011-09-23T18:25:08Z")
Sounds like the plaintiffs got everything they wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/50 "2011-09-23T18:29:45Z")
> [@](#): > > which must … not … referred to as a meeting facility. What the fuck? You must use the religious terms that I prefer? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/51 "2011-09-23T18:32:17Z")
Well, it doesn’t say they have to call it a chapel. That said, chapel is pretty much the _de facto_ term for a non-sectarian place of worship, even if in its other sense it denotes a place of Christian worship. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/52 "2011-09-23T22:33:21Z")
Guess the Quakers are SOL. Maybe they can pitch a tent? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/53 "2011-09-24T01:39:36Z")
No. The government has to provide a chapel and keep this space separate from other meeting rooms. This in no way prevents Quakers from holding memorial meetings, and indeed may facilitate this if the congregation is doctrinally permitted and willing to use the facility. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/54 "2011-09-24T02:24:57Z")
I still don’t get why it can’t be a general purpose meeting room. Why does the government have to provide a room that has a specifically religious name? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/55 "2011-09-24T03:24:47Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Guess the Quakers are SOL. Maybe they can pitch a tent? > [@Mr.Moto](#): > > No. The government has to provide a chapel and keep this space separate from other meeting rooms. This in no way prevents Quakers from holding memorial meetings, and indeed may facilitate this if the congregation is doctrinally permitted and willing to use the facility. But Quakers call their chapels “meeting houses.” Guess they can’t use the chapel. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/56 "2011-09-24T11:57:39Z")
Can someone provide me a reason why a Quaker would be prevented from using a chapel at a cemetery for a service? Certainly if a Quaker congregation were building their own worship space they would call it a meeting house. But that’s not what is happening here. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/57 "2011-09-24T12:22:14Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I still don’t get why it can’t be a general purpose meeting room. Why does the government have to provide a room that has a specifically religious name? In the particular case of the Houston National Cemetery, the chapel was built as the place was established more than forty years ago. It had been called a chapel all of that time. Given this, the proper question is whether there is a good reason to change this practice. There didn’t seem to be one in my opinion, and the settlement seems very fair to me. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/58 "2011-09-24T14:47:57Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > In the particular case of the Houston National Cemetery, the chapel was built as the place was established more than forty years ago. It had been called a chapel all of that time. > > Given this, the proper question is whether there is a good reason to change this practice. There didn’t seem to be one in my opinion, and the settlement seems very fair to me. The good reason is that it’s better for a government facility not to have a room that uses a name implying that it is explicitly reserved for religious practice, especially when it implication only one particular religion or a particular set of religions. Government should not be endorsing religion. There should be a room for services, free of any implication regarding whether those services will have a religious component, not to mention any implication that it will be a particular religion’s practice. There aren’t any reasons that can trump this. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/59 "2011-09-24T17:07:45Z")
No. That is not a good reason. There are people who come under the care of the government from time to time - these might include veterans or active duty servicemembers or prisoners. Their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion does not end when they cross over into federal property. The government may need to spend public funds to facilitate the free exercise of religion of these individuals. This might entail chaplains in the military. It might entail a chapel in a national cemetery. All of this is not only proper but seems a well settled constitutional issue. See _Marsh v. Chambers_. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809/60 "2011-09-24T18:00:51Z")
Their right to practice their religion is in no way hindered by use if a neutral term for a room. What use they make if the room is their business, but they want mire than that. They want explicit government acknowledgement and endorsement if their preferred use, which they should not have the right to. They can call the room whatever they want, but they should not be able to force the government to call it a “chapel.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/panetta-and-the-dod-banning-god-from-military-funerals/588809.md?page=4)