Posted on 06/26/2009 7:57:12 AM PDT by virtuous
The U.S. Navy has ordered a chat group gathered on a special website the military set up for families of service members to drop the word "Christian" from its title.
It also has changed the website's rules to ban all "religious discussions" because such speech "contradicts our purpose by creating unnecessary divisions among site members."
The issue was exposed by officials with Liberty Counsel, a public interest law firm that has written to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus demanding that the censorship on the NavyforMoms.com website be reversed.
"The prohibition of religious groups and religious speech on Navy for Moms by the United States Navy is unconstitutional," said the letter dispatched also to the private company engaged by the Navy to operate the site.
"The government simply may not create a forum and then proclaim religious views are not welcome as that is blatant viewpoint discrimination, absolutely prohibited by the First Amendment. Even if the restrictions were evaluated as content restrictions, the United Sates Navy could not withstand the strict scrutiny required by the Supreme Court for analyzing the restrictions," the letter, signed by attorney David Corry on behalf of Liberty Counsel, said.
"The use of the name 'Christian' cannot violate the Establishment Clause since it is purely private, occurs in a designated public forum, and has been publicly announced and open to all on equal terms," he wrote.
The issue developed at the Navy for Moms site, which explains it is "for mothers of kids in the U.S. Navy and for Moms who have questions about Navy life for their kids."
Its features include forums, groups, blogs and chat.
Liberty Counsel said the site was set up by the Navy to provide support and a means of communication for mothers and other loved ones of current and potential sailors.
Last September, a group set up by members called itself "Christian Chat."
But June 12 the website administrator "informed the group that it could not use the name 'Christian Chat.' The administrator said that the group's name had to be changed because such blatantly religious speech is too divisive for a public forum."
It was about then that the "guidelines" also were revised to prohibit the posting of religious discussions except for prayers offered for sailors, the letter says.
"The exclusion of religious groups and religious speech by the Navy on its Navy for Moms website is unconstitutional," said Corry. "The government may not create a public forum of support and then proclaim that religious views are not welcome – to do so is clearly unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
"Liberty Counsel asks that the United States Navy not put itself in the position of opposing the First Amendment rights of its closest supporters," he said.
Other groups still are named "Nuke moms," "Texas moms" and the like.
The website's policy, however, said the site is a "community centered on support."
"This site is about the men and women who volunteer to serve their country, not about political parties or personal opinions of our elected officials," it states. "Not Permitted: Posting political or religious discussions in the Forums, Groups or Blogs, Forming political or religious groups."
A Navy spokesman declined to respond to WND's request for a comment on the dispute.
"The actions of the United States Navy and its agent, Campbell-Ewald Company, have unnecessarily exposed the Navy to liability for violating the civil rights of the members of 'Christian Chat' and other users of Navy for Moms to free speech," the letter warned.
"Specifically, I am asking you to send a written response to this letter within twenty (20) days with assurances that the members of 'Christian Chat' will be informed that their group name is not required to be changed, that all members and users of Navy for Moms will be informed of a change in policy such that the directives and restrictions on religious expression and association outlined in this letter have been withdrawn, and that the Navy for Moms community guidelines have been amended," the letter said.
You use government servers, you play by government rules. Nothing keeps them from setting up their own site.
But this is funny considering how many official military events are religious. The Navy even recognizes several patron saints.
I am sure that this will not affect any Muslims and/or Black Muslims that may have friends or family in the U.S. Navy.
Mentioning “Allah” will be quite alright I am sure.
Navy families ping
They set it up, adverise it as being for us, then also they monitor it to find things to use against the recruits in boot camp.
I was a proud member there, now I feel it’s sort of sneaky.
You can bet on this!
The issue was exposed by officials with Liberty Counsel, a public interest law firm that has written to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus demanding that the censorship on the NavyforMoms.com website be reversed....
....Last September, a group set up by members called itself "Christian Chat." But June 12 the website administrator "informed the group that it could not use the name 'Christian Chat.' The administrator said that the group's name had to be changed because such blatantly religious speech is too divisive for a public forum."
It was about then that the "guidelines" also were revised to prohibit the posting of religious discussions except for prayers offered for sailors, the letter says.
Ping for later
US Constitution, Amendment One on government’s relationship with religion: ‘or prohibit the free exercise thereof’
...that seems pretty straightforward to me. The Government CANNOT legally prevent you from discussing things of a religious nature.
They don't. They just saying you can't do it on their dime.
I think that view is the unconstitutional view. I think the cause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... ," applies to rules on government servers. The opeative portion of the clause being, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This is commonly misunderstood. Your right to the free exercise of religion is not the same as the right to a venue in which to express it. You posses the former, but not the latter. The Navy as an arm of the government may not suppress your right to religious speech, but it is not obligated to provide you the venue.
But it’s on Ning servers. That’s a commercial company, is it not?
No, I am not misunderstanding.
But it provided a venue for expressing ones self/opinion, this is not in question. It also then changed the rules for this venue to exclude religious discussion; again, this is not in question.
How then is this NOT a case of such abridgment of the right to free speech/religion? Remember that these are also CIVILIANS and not under ANY jurisdiction of the UMCJ, or naval rules and regulations.
and the attack against Christianity continues. How long will it be before the military is ordered to have cease Christian Chaplains using the cross on their collars.
Exactly, the government rules are called the Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from restricting religious expression.
This is the military. All sorts of rights are abridged for the good order, which was the reason cited. But the operative portion is that they are not prohibiting the free exercise. The people are free to do it elsewhere. The Navy is only saying their resources will not be used to promote that free exercise.
IMHO though this did not come down from high. Probably some bureaucrat in the agency that runs the site, possibly not anti-religious himself but found some policy, interpreted it in an overly-PC manner and got afraid.
Whose dime? The governments?!? Where do you think their funding comes from?
Your argument is equivalent to saying it’s OK if the Federal Government says you can’t talk about religion in a national park!
That sounds reasonable to me. If this is the case, the Navy/DoD will probably find a way to provide desired services to families.
The best answer is a question.
Would you mind if the government spent money to provide a forum for members of the Church of Satan?
Christian Chaplains have already been forbidden to pray in the name of Jesus.
If they provide a public forum, then I can’t see that there is an ability to restrict that, no. Now, I might say that they shouldn’t provide tht public forum, but then they would have to take it away from everyone, not just the Satanists. Otherwise it’s religious discrimination. And even if they exclude all religions, it’s still religious discrimination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.