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.
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
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!
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.
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?
Well said. Of course respect for others or common courtesy is out of style these days…
I’m bumping the thread because there has been a mediated settlement in the case.
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.
Sounds like the plaintiffs got everything they wanted.
What the fuck? You must use the religious terms that I prefer?
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.
Guess the Quakers are SOL. Maybe they can pitch a tent?
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.
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?
But Quakers call their chapels “meeting houses.” Guess they can’t use the chapel.
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.
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.
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.
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.”