Weinstein v Ammerman, Continued
In September, Michael and Bonnie Weinstein filed a civil lawsuit against the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches and Gordon Klingenschmitt. The primary issue seems to be Klingenschmitt’s “imprecatory prayer” against Weinstein and Barry Lynn, as was noted in a previous analysis. (Weinstein has amended his lawsuit twice in the intervening months, but only the original is currently publicly available.) This case will be interesting for religious freedom in general, not just in the military, since it may delineate what control–if any–the government is willing to place on public prayer. Initial commentators, including allies of the Weinsteins, doubted they would succeed in their suit. However, despite the initial furor, there has been little in the media since.
The case continues, however. It appears one of the initial issues will be jurisdiction, which is a legitimate question in this case. Weinstein is a resident of New Mexico, the CFGC is headquartered in Texas, and Klingenschmitt is presumed to be a resident of Colorado. Weinstein is suing in Texas district court. Since the CFGC is in Dallas, it would appear to make sense that Weinstein would sue the CFGC in Texas.
However, the CFGC’s connection to the complaint is tenuous. As noted already, the precipitating action in this litigation appears to be a prayer by Klingenschmitt, not anything done or said by the CFGC or its head, Jim Ammerman. The CFGC’s role in the prayer is nonexistent, except insomuch as Klingenschmitt is a Read more