"The Bible and Its Influence," has been endorsed by the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League, as well as Catholic leaders and a wide range of liberal and conservative Protestants. The ADL and the AJCongress both have condemned another textbook, "The Bible in History and Literature," used in more than 300 school districts across the country, according to its publisher. .... officials at both the AJCongress and the ADL acknowledged some problems with the textbook they endorsed and said that they preferred comparative religion courses to classes focused solely on the Bible. But, officials at both organizations said, despite these misgivings, they felt compelled to offer an alternative to "The Bible in History and Literature," which they described as a blatant attempt to push a right-wing Christian agenda in public schools. There is this "other Bible curriculum that's out there that's absolutely horrendous. It's just terrible," said Marc Stern, general counsel of the AJCongress. Stern, who served as a content editor for "The Bible and Its Influence" and reviewed passages of the book before its release, said the new text fills a "political demand" for a more moderate study guide. Ellen Frankel, editor in chief of the Jewish Publication Society, also reviewed the new text before its release.

lays out the history of tolerance in the United States while urgently reminding us what is at stake when we speak, as we so often do, of "church and state" or "moral values" or "the culture wars." A series of essays by various contributors, the volume discusses religion in America's public square from the perspective of different traditions and recovers early American thought on the connection between God and politics.

examines what he calls "The Baptist Tradition of Religious Liberty," invoking the denomination's history of insisting that the church follow Jesus' lead in rendering to God those things which are God's, and to Caesar those things which are Caesar's. "According to traditional Baptist belief, a government that gives preferential treatment to certain religious beliefs breaches the eternal and inalienable rights of each individual," Davis writes, "and disobeys the will of God."

I want to stay in the Navy and I want to pray publicly in Jesus' name, but on Friday, admirals in the Pentagon, claiming to speak for the president of the United States, stripped me of my uniform for all public appearances. They said, "You can't pray in Jesus' name in public, unless you're wearing civilian clothes."

And so that's when I had enough. I began this hunger fast, and I'm asking the president of the United States to sign an executive order, protecting all of our military chaplains' right to pray according to their diverse faiths.

The Navy has public ceremonies -- where attendance is mandatory for sailors and officers -- in which chaplains are asked to use inclusive language that reflects the diversity of the armed forces. Klingenschmitt doesn't care for that approach and wants to use his post to promote Christianity. His superiors said no, so Klingenschmitt started a hunger strike and wants the White House to support him.

What's more, 70 members of Congress, nearly all of whom are Republicans, are using Klingenschmitt's fight to argue that Christian chaplains should be able to proselytize on the job. In other words, we'd have official government ministers, whose salary is paid with tax dollars, preaching Christianity to American troops. Suggesting that, at a minimum, official military prayers should be "non-sectarian" is, in the minds of these congressional critics, "censorship of Christian beliefs." (One wonders if they'd feel the same if a Muslim military chaplain wanted faith-specific religious expressions at mandatory Navy ceremonies.)

But it is in fact complicated. And Chaplain Klingenschmitt has been clear about his hopes that muslim chaplains would be able to pray according to their faith as well. His is not a majoritarian appeal. It represents a deeply emotional issue for many ministers.  Being a government-sponsored religious figure can be a profoundly different role than that of a private minister to one's own congregation. It may not be a desirable one for a person of faith; and it is a precarious position for a government bent on tolerant religious exercise to have created.

Benen was right to link to a statement of James Madison's in which he considered public chaplains to be a questionable idea. It's a questionable role, I believe, both for the public/military and for the religious leader. But if we are going to have public chaplains at all, it is a necessary complication.

This decision is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror that's coming to a rapid end with Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito... This was an extremely injudicious judge who went way, way beyond his boundaries -- if he had any eyes on advancing up the judicial ladder, he just sawed off the bottom rung.