Religion & American Law

Judge Rules it is OK to Pray for Harm To Come To Others

Earlier this month a District Judge in Dallas ruled that it is legal to ask God to do harm to another person, as long as no one is actually threatened or harmed.

Here is a summary of the case in question.  A lawsuit brought by a Jewish agnostic (Mike Weinstein) against a former Navy chaplain (Gordon Klingenschmitt) stated that “curse” prayers, like those in Psalm 109, were used to incite others to do harm to the agnostic and his family.     The case was dismissed by the Dallas District Court Judge who ruled that there was no evidence that prayers by the Navy chaplain were connected to threats made against Weinstein.  Weinstein is also the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. 

From our discussions of First Amendment history this case is troubling.  Does the First Amendment protect speech despite the harms it may cause?   Under what circumstances should the court regulate speech that fosters or facilitates violence, hate or harm to another human being?  Should such speech be allowed in public religious language or prayers? 

Here are a few more facts about the case.  Weinstein is a former Air Force lawyer who started the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to battle with what he sees as undue religious influence in the armed forces.  Klingenschmitt, the Navy endorsed chaplain, posted a prayer on his website urging followers to pray for the downfall of the MRFF.  The prayer quoted from Psalm 109 calls for the death of an opponent and curses on his widow and children.  After the ruling Klingenschmitt said “I praise God for religious freedom because the judge declared it’s OK to pray imprecatory prayers and quote Psalm 109.”

Weinstein explained that he received death threats, his house painted with vile words and symbols and his windows have been shot out.   “A very aggressive appeal is highly likely,” he says.  Weinstein added, “I don’t think the judge understood that these are not regular prayers” but compared imprecatory prayers to a radical Islamic fatwa.

John W. Whitehead, President of the Rutherford Institute, a legal advocacy group that helped defend the chaplain and the group he represents said, “Thankfully, the district court recognized that if people are forced to stop offering imprecatory prayers, half the churches, synagogues and mosques in this country will have to be shut down.”  

In my opinion, this case sets a dangerous precedence.  Public speech that expresses hatred can inflict potential harm – harms we have seen regularly in the news.  Religious zealots, as well as those strong civic minded individuals who use religiously grounded beliefs (or no religious belief) to distort and devalue human beings offer new opportunities for the courts to consider, more carefully how equal protections will be granted. 

How could the judge in this case rule that the threats and vandalism Mr. Weinstein experienced not be considered to have stemmed from the speech Mr. Klingerschmitt and his group uttered?