Is that your opinion? Because it seems to be at odds with the settlement and with prevailing law as expressed in the Marsh v. Chambers case.
After all, if public funding of chaplains is permissible, surely public funding of chapels must be as well.
Yes that’s my opinion. Did I imply otherwise?
Regardless of whether I agree with the chaplain reasoning, I should think that the issue of hiring chaplains is significantly different from the naming of a room that is available for use by persons of any religion or no religion.