Hospital Chaplain Fired for Praying in Jesus Name

[Hardenbergh]

Jay Sekulow has been working on the issue of military chaplains being restricted in their ability to pray. He was discussing it at noon on his radio program. This recent article is specifically about a hospital chaplain.

Hospital Chaplain Danny Harvey Fired for Praying In Jesus Name 30 Churches will march around hospital after hospital CEO Louis Bremer resigns

By Chaplain Klingenschmitt, WDC Guest Writer

2007-09-15 -- WDC Media News -- LEESBURG, Fla. -- Hospital Chaplain Danny Harvey, recently fired for praying "in Jesus name" by the Leesburg Regional Medical Center, will hold two press conferences, Friday at 2 pm, and Saturday at 8:30 am, on the public steps of City Hall (corner of 5th and Main) in Leesburg Florida.

Clergy and citizens from over 30 churches will gather at 8:15 am, to march around the hospital at 9:00am, on Saturday 15 Sep, starting from the steps of Leesburg City Hall. The marchers will walk in silent prayer for two-miles around the South Campus of the hospital, wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the rallying cry, "My Jesus, My Freedom, My Stand."

Public outcry in support of Chaplain Harvey has already resulted in the sudden resignation of hospital CEO Louis Bremer, the same man who publicly supported Human Resource director Darlene Stone who fired Chaplain Harvey for praying in Jesus name.

http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=3514

Sekulow has pointed out that to witness or share the gospel in the military is easier if you are just an enlisted servicemen or officer. The chaplains have been seriously curtailed which makes no sense because it is they who are expected to represent the gospel to soldiers who are either in harms way or may be in the near future.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Jay-Sekulow-of-ACLJ-Warns-Christians-to-Act-Now&id=661173



Military chaplains play a vital role in providing comfort and spiritual support for our men and women who serve this country protecting our freedoms. It is troubling to learn that efforts are underway inside the military to censor chaplains and to prevent them from praying according to their faith. The fact is that chaplains have a constitutional right to adhere to the religious expressions of their faith and exercise them freely without censorship. For Christian chaplains to refrain from praying in the name of Jesus, as some have suggested, represents a serious disservice not only to the chaplains but to the many Christian service men and women who turn to their chaplains for comfort, inspiration, and support.

“I am so grateful to the ACLJ for their efforts in drawing attention to this important issue,” said Rep. Jones. “I am thankful that so many people have lent their signature and their support to the cause of protecting our military chaplains’ right of free speech. After hearing account after account of military chaplains throughout the Armed Services who have experienced the suppression of their constitutional right to pray according to their faith, I believe it is so very important that the President is made aware of this pervasive problem.”

http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=291

[Darat]

Any evidence for his claim that he was fired for "praying in Jesus's name"?

The nearest I can find is in the PDF of the lawyer's letter on www.prayinjesusname.org that states

"That decision was made based on a long history of non-compliance to the responsibilities of the paid position you held."

[drkitten]

Jay Sekulow has been working on the issue of military chaplains being restricted in their ability to pray. He was discussing it at noon on his radio program. This recent article is specifically about a hospital chaplain.


Are you familiar with the Jefferson thread, where it was amply demonstrated that Jay Sekulow is not above lying to make a point in the interests of his attempts to overrun the Bill of Rights?

If this incident occurred at all -- which is not clear -- I strongly suspect there is another side to the story. If the chaplain was supposed to be "providing comfort and spiritual support for our men and women who serve this country protecting our freedoms" to a group of people who happened to be Jewish, and he refused to accomodate their beliefs, then firing was not only appropriate, but lenient. He could have been court-martialed.

This paragraph is simply wrong:


The chaplains have been seriously curtailed which makes no sense because it is they who are expected to represent the gospel to soldiers who are either in harms way or may be in the near future.

Chaplains are not expected to "represent the gospel" to soldiers. The job requirements for Army chaplains specifically require that they be "sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel." A chaplain who was unable to provide counselling to an atheist soldier and instead insisted on "praying in Jesus' name" at him is acting incompetently and should be disciplined.

[Garrette]

Chaplains are not expected to "represent the gospel" to soldiers. The job requirements for Army chaplains specifically require that they be "sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel." A chaplain who was unable to provide counselling to an atheist soldier and instead insisted on "praying in Jesus' name" at him is acting incompetently and should be disciplined.I was going to write something along these lines, but drkitten nails it. It bears repeating.

[pgwenthold]

My initial response was to call BS. This reaks as being similar to Bil OReilly's claim that a school outlawed Santa Claus. There's more to it.

Darat's followup investigation seems to support that (emphasis on "long history of non-compliance"), especially in light of the other comments about ways in which it would be improper to do what he claims he was doing.

[JoeEllison]

Jay Sekulow is a lying piece of garbage. A chaplain's job is to provide counselling to all of the troops who need it. He is NOT there to preach to or attempt to convert people who don't share his faith. They are even there to help the atheists, without trying to force religion on them, if they need someone to talk to.
I was pretty close to the chaplain at Boot Camp, and one of the chaplains where I was stationed. Both of them knew I was an atheist, and never pushed their religion on me. They would, however, lend an ear when you needed someone outside of the chain of command to talk to, on subject ranging from religion to your girlfriend dumping you. THAT'S what they are there for, not to "represent the gospel".

[pgwenthold]

Jay Sekulow is a lying piece of garbage. A chaplain's job is to provide counselling to all of the troops who need it. He is NOT there to preach to or attempt to convert people who don't share his faith. They are even there to help the atheists, without trying to force religion on them, if they need someone to talk to.
I was pretty close to the chaplain at Boot Camp, and one of the chaplains where I was stationed. Both of them knew I was an atheist, and never pushed their religion on me. They would, however, lend an ear when you needed someone outside of the chain of command to talk to, on subject ranging from religion to your girlfriend dumping you. THAT'S what they are there for, not to "represent the gospel".


I was struck by this comment

After hearing account after account of military chaplains throughout the Armed Services who have experienced the suppression of their constitutional right to pray according to their faith,

Since when has anyone suppressed their constitutional right to "pray according to their faith"? They can pray however they want to their hearts desire _on their own._ However, when it comes to working for the government, they are not allowed to do whatever they want, no more than a teacher is allowed to lead prayers in a public school.

Once again, we have christians claiming persecution because they are not allowed to use their government-provided positions to promote their particular religion.

You want to "pray in Jesus's name" you can go build your own church and pray all you want. You want to be a military chaplain, then you are bound by the rules of the profession.

[JoeEllison]

Since when has anyone suppressed their constitutional right to "pray according to their faith"? They can pray however they want to their hearts desire _on their own._ However, when it comes to working for the government, they are not allowed to do whatever they want, no more than a teacher is allowed to lead prayers in a public school.

Once again, we have christians claiming persecution because they are not allowed to use their government-provided positions to promote their particular religion.

You want to "pray in Jesus's name" you can go build your own church and pray all you want. You want to be a military chaplain, then you are bound by the rules of the profession.Like I said, they are flat-out lying, in order to support their idiotic persecution delusion. They can even preach if they want to, during the times and at the places allotted for worship.

What they aren't allowed to do is to target people who don't believe as they do, and try to convert them, or denigrate them for their lack of shared faith. It is not persecution to be restrained from violating the rights of others.

[Hardenbergh]

I found a website asking for support to have a Chapel in the White House.

There are more than one hundred and thirty rooms in the White House which include the First Family's living quarters, a library, swimming pool, exercise room, bowling alley, movie theater, medical facilities, conference rooms, concession stand, Cabinet Room, War Room, the State Dining Room, the East Room, suites of offices for the President including the famous Oval Office, and offices for the White House staff.

Missing is a Chapel in the White House.


The United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives have Chapels and Chaplains.

http://www.chapelinthewhitehouse.com/index.html

[Darat]

I found a website asking for support to have a Chapel in the White House.

http://www.chapelinthewhitehouse.com/index.html

:confused: Er what has this got to do with your OP?

[JoeEllison]

:confused: Er what has this got to do with your OP?

Yeah, me too!

[Hardenbergh]

Jay Sekulow is a lying piece of garbage. A chaplain's job is to provide counselling to all of the troops who need it. He is NOT there to preach to or attempt to convert people who don't share his faith. They are even there to help the atheists, without trying to force religion on them, if they need someone to talk to. I was pretty close to the chaplain at Boot Camp, and one of the chaplains where I was stationed. Both of them knew I was an atheist, and never pushed their religion on me. They would, however, lend an ear when you needed someone outside of the chain of command to talk to, on subject ranging from religion to your girlfriend dumping you. THAT'S what they are there for, not to "represent the gospel".

I think that the chaplain acted correctly in your case. But I also think he's entitled to say a prayer for those troops that welcome it. I'm not sure what kind of training a chaplain needs but if they attend a seminary or divinity school, I should think that they're entitled to squeeze in a prayer or two.

[Darat]

...snip.... I'm not sure what kind of training a chaplain needs but if they attend a seminary or divinity school, I should think that they're entitled to squeeze in a prayer or two.

Are they not?

ETA to answer myself - yes they are, from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00003547----000-.html

(a) Each chaplain shall, when practicable, hold appropriate religious services at least once on each Sunday for the command to which he is assigned, and shall perform appropriate religious burial services for members of the Army who die while in that command.

[Hardenbergh]

Any evidence for his claim that he was fired for "praying in Jesus's name"?

The nearest I can find is in the PDF of the lawyer's letter on www.prayinjesusname.org that states

"That decision was made based on a long history of non-compliance to the responsibilities of the paid position you held."

There may be articles from other news sources that offer more details. I haven't looked.

I just found one from Fox News. Read the whole article:

Hospital officials deny any discrimination against Harvey and said that his departure was brought about because his services were not consistent with center's various faiths.

Louis H. Bremer Jr., LRMC president and chief executive officer, said in a statement: "The interpretation many Christians are getting is that prayer is completely banned from the hospital, which couldn't be further from the truth."

"It would be very appropriate to say Jesus' name in the presence of a Christian family. That's no problem," Bremer said in the statement. "What must be understood is knowing the audience and what is appropriate for that particular situation."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295334,00.html

Harvey claims that he never imposed his beliefs on others without asking them if they wanted prayer.

Hospital chaplains regularly offer comfort to patients and/or their famiies through scriptures and prayers. If the person was a different faith, a representative of that faith would be contacted, according to officials.

"I would approach a family and offer them the chance for me to pray for them, but they have the option to say no," Harvey told the Daily Commerical. "I have never imposed my beliefs on others."

[drkitten]

I think that the chaplain acted correctly in your case. But I also think he's entitled to say a prayer for those troops that welcome it.

This is correct. But he is not entitled, publically and officially, to say a prayer for those troops who do not welcome it and who object to it.

I'm not sure what kind of training a chaplain needs but if they attend a seminary or divinity school, I should think that they're entitled to squeeze in a prayer or two.

In an official capacity? Absolutely and unequivocably not. If you offer to pray for a soldier and he tells you "no, thanks," you are required to respect his decision in that regard. What you say on your own time in the privacy of your own company is, of course, your own business. But on the company's time, you are required to be "sensitive to religious pluralism" and STFU if that's what the soldier wants.

If you read the documents Darat cited, this point apparently came up repeatedly. Soldiers and family actively complained about this guy's behavior, and he was disciplined before about his inability to be "sensitive" to their needs. "Praying in Jesus' name" is simply not respectful to ALL religions -- and such respect is a genuine requirement for the chaplaincy.

[joobz]

I think that the chaplain acted correctly in your case. But I also think he's entitled to say a prayer for those troops that welcome it. I'm not sure what kind of training a chaplain needs but if they attend a seminary or divinity school, I should think that they're entitled to squeeze in a prayer or two.
So if you have a muslim chaplain who was asked to pray for a christian soldier, you'd be ok if they worked in a couple of references to Allah?

[drkitten]

So if you have a muslim chaplain who was asked to pray for a christian soldier, you'd be ok if they worked in a couple of references to Allah?

Of course not! That would be disrespectful, since we all know that Christianity is the only True religion.

I mean, Protestant Christianity, of course.

Baptist Protestant Christianity.

Southern Baptist Protestant Christianity.

... of Texas.

Everyone else, of course, is a heathen and can only be saved by prayers in Jesus' name, whether they are offended by them or not.

[JoeEllison]

I think that the chaplain acted correctly in your case. But I also think he's entitled to say a prayer for those troops that welcome it. I'm not sure what kind of training a chaplain needs but if they attend a seminary or divinity school, I should think that they're entitled to squeeze in a prayer or two.
Who said they weren't? Those liars at the ACLJ?

[Hardenbergh]

In an official capacity? Absolutely and unequivocably not. If you offer to pray for a soldier and he tells you "no, thanks," you are required to respect his decision in that regard. What you say on your own time in the privacy of your own company is, of course, your own business. But on the company's time, you are required to be "sensitive to religious pluralism" and STFU if that's what the soldier wants.

If you read the documents Darat cited, this point apparently came up repeatedly. Soldiers and family actively complained about this guy's behavior, and he was disciplined before about his inability to be "sensitive" to their needs. "Praying in Jesus' name" is simply not respectful to ALL religions -- and such respect is a genuine requirement for the chaplaincy.

I agree that if a soldier makes it clear that he'd rather not have the chaplain pray for him or her, then the chaplain should respect those wishes. Most definitely. When I said that he should be entitled to squeeze in a prayer or two, I meant for those soldiers that agreed to it.

[Tanstaafl]

Who said they weren't? Those liars at the ACLJ?


Ah, yes! The good old Amercian Center of Lying for Jesus.

[ponderingturtle]

All anyone has to do is look at the second quote in the OP and it is clearly about proselytizing.

[tkingdoll]

I agree that if a soldier makes it clear that he'd rather not have the chaplain pray for him or her, then the chaplain should respect those wishes. Most definitely. When I said that he should be entitled to squeeze in a prayer or two, I meant for those soldiers that agreed to it.

Excellent. So do you further agree that a chaplain repeatedly does not respect those wishes, that he should be fired?

[pgwenthold]

I agree that if a soldier makes it clear that he'd rather not have the chaplain pray for him or her, then the chaplain should respect those wishes. Most definitely. When I said that he should be entitled to squeeze in a prayer or two, I meant for those soldiers that agreed to it.

You are vague, here. Suppose it was a Jewish soldier who agreed to it. Should the chaplain end the prayer, "In Jesus's name"? Should the chaplain say the "Lord's Prayer" (which, note, is a Jesus teaching, not in the Old Testament)? Just because a Jewish soldier agrees to "prayers" doesn't mean Christian prayers.

It doesn't seem the chaplain was dismissed for "praying," but for insisting on using prayers that didn't match the faith of the soldiers at hand.

If it were a Muslim chaplain, should he be allowed to ask a Christian soldier to join him facing Mecca to pray to Allah?

A chaplain who insists on using christian prayers for Jewish soldiers is just as wrong as a chaplain who insists on praying with an atheist.

[drkitten]

I agree that if a soldier makes it clear that he'd rather not have the chaplain pray for him or her, then the chaplain should respect those wishes. Most definitely. When I said that he should be entitled to squeeze in a prayer or two, I meant for those soldiers that agreed to it.

But that doesn't seem to be what the case is about. If you read the "termination letter" on Darat's web citation, the hospital makes it clear that they are responding to multiple complaints about the chaplain's behavior, and in particular, his instance on praying for/at patients and family members that don't want that.

This unwanted behavior was even witnessed by the director of HR herself, and she warned him, in writing, that if he did it again, he'd be fired.

He did it again. To no one's surprise but his own, he was fired.

So not only is he a liar-for-Jesus, but he's a dumb liar-for=Jesus.

[Hardenbergh]

Excellent. So do you further agree that a chaplain repeatedly does not respect those wishes, that he should be fired?

Yes, if he did it repeatedly. I'm not sure if the chaplain in the article was guilty of that according to this final letter of appeal from Danny Harvey.

http://www.prayinjesusname.org/Frenzy11/HarveyPetition.pdf

[Darat]

Please drkitten - www.prayinjesusname.org is not "..Darat's web site.."! :D

[drkitten]

Yes, if he did it repeatedly. I'm not sure if the chaplain in the article was guilty of that according to this final letter of appeal from Danny Harvey.

He was.

In particular, he was disciplined on August 20 for an event that happened on August 14, 2007 as well as August 14, 2002. See the cited letter. He was informed at that time that if the event recurred, he would be terminated. Since he was not terminated at that time, it is reasonable to assume that another event occurred to cause that termination.

Three times is "repeatedly."

[JoeEllison]

Poor crybaby Liars for Jesus, whining because they aren't allowed to violate the rights of others. Give me a break already.

[Hardenbergh]

He was.

In particular, he was disciplined on August 20 for an event that happened on August 14, 2007 as well as August 14, 2002. See the cited letter. He was informed at that time that if the event recurred, he would be terminated. Since he was not terminated at that time, it is reasonable to assume that another event occurred to cause that termination.

Three times is "repeatedly."

I just read the memo dated Monday, August 20. The link is below. It states that the date of termination is October 17, 2007.

http://www.prayinjesusname.org/Frenzy11/HarveyProof.pdf

There is mention of another person observing that she had to talk with Danny about it but I don't know if it was actually documented accept in this memo. The dates of the incidents weren't mentioned so it doesn't appear to be documented.

Joni Smith, VP and Danny's former supervisor indicated she has had to also address this issue with Danny on several occasions including an incident that occurred at Leadership where Danny prayed in the name of Jesus which offended those of other religions.

Danny reiterates this lack of documentation in his letter, or at least it seems to imply that his file doesn't show the complaints made by Joni Smith:

I would like you to review my personnel file to see exactly how many complaints have been registered against me over the 8 years of my tenure. I have not been shown any complaints. Since the incident in 2002/2003, I have not had one written discipline regarding this issue. Official statements from the hospital state that there have been numerous compalints, which I contend is incorrect.

In other words, Danny is stating that the references made by Joni Smith don't count because they weren't in writing and they wouldn't be considered a formal complaint.

[Complexity]

Good.

Public institutions shouldn't have chaplains, anyway.

[joobz]

Good.

Public institutions shouldn't have chaplains, anyway.
Hmm, it is a bit of a grey area

from their website: http://www.leesburgregional.org/chaplaincy_overview.htm
The chaplains visit all newly admitted patients, patients in critical care areas and any patients who request a visit. You need only communicate your wishes to your nurse to have a message conveyed to the hospital chaplain.

I am not against a hospital providing some form of "alternative care" as form of comfort, if it does indeed provide comfort. However, I find the wording a bit dubious. They will visit all new patients? Meaning, you must specifically ask them NOT to visit?

[Hardenbergh]

I am not against a hospital providing some form of "alternative care" as form of comfort, if it does indeed provide comfort. However, I find the wording a bit dubious. They will visit all new patients? Meaning, you must specifically ask them NOT to visit?

When the chaplain is visiting the patient for the first time, it's probably more as a friendly gesture to let the patient know that's he available if he's ever needed. He might just introduce himself and say, "Hello" and let the patient know that he cares. I don't think he'd start preaching right away unless the patient asked questions about faith/Jesus/God.

[joobz]

When the chaplain is visiting the patient for the first time, it's probably more as a friendly gesture to let the patient know that's he available if he's ever needed. He might just introduce himself and say, "Hello" and let the patient know that he cares. I don't think he'd start preaching right away unless the patient asked questions about faith/Jesus/God.
Of course it is done with the best intentions, but you must see how such a presence can be unwelcome to a person of different faith in such a hard time as severe illness.

if someone was actually using such a position to proceletize...that is pretty horrible behavior. I hope you are right and the chaplain in question was wrongfully accused and isn't as depraved to take advantage of the situation to suit his own selfish ends.

[David Swidler]

When the chaplain is visiting the patient for the first time, it's probably more as a friendly gesture to let the patient know that's he available if he's ever needed. He might just introduce himself and say, "Hello" and let the patient know that he cares. I don't think he'd start preaching right away unless the patient asked questions about faith/Jesus/God.

When my little brother broke his leg at age 5, he was in traction for a few weeks at the closest hospital, which happens to be a Catholic institution. It was December, and my mother recalls two things about that time that still bring a smile to her face:

In the first, my brother mentioned the very nice man who "waved" to the people in the room every night as he left.

In the second, he removed his yarmulke when Santa showed up, because he didn't think he'd get a present otherwise.

When my sister-in-law had her first kid, she gave birth at a Catholic hospital in New Jersey (Holy Name Hospital, I think). There was a crucifix over her bed. Naturally, it made the family somewhat uncomfortable, so one if them fashioned a sign that used it as the "T" in "Happy Birthday".

[drkitten]

In other words, Danny is stating that the references made by Joni Smith don't count because they weren't in writing and they wouldn't be considered a formal complaint.

Yeah. That's called "lying." References to the complaints are in his file -- i.e., they're documented.

[kane42]

Are you familiar with the Jefferson thread, where it was amply demonstrated that Jay Sekulow is not above lying to make a point in the interests of his attempts to overrun the Bill of Rights?


I don't think the author of the article is known for his honesty in these matters either...

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/07/klingenschmitts_former_command.php

[fanboy]

Looking at the the final warning and Harvey's letter, it seems like Harvey doesn't know why he was fired. The final warning warns Harvey about three things: 1) Not respecting other faiths. 2) Shoving his clerical duties onto his bosses' secretary. (Pause for irony.) And 3) not doing his bureaucratic duties on the hospital computer system.

When I looked 1) on the final warning, I noticed that it never accuses Harvey of praying in the name of Jesus with patients who don't want it. Rather, it states that Harvey prayed in the name of Jesus at Leadership. Maybe I'm off base, but Leadership sounds like a regular meeting of Hospital middle-management. The warning also mentions Team Members (ie, co-workers) So it seems like Harvey wasn't pushing his religion on the patients, but on the staff.

Harvey's letter focuses entirely on his interaction with the patients. His script, the volunteers. It makes no mention of the staff, or his unwillingness to do the boring parts of the job. Both the final warning and Harvey's letter mention Harvey getting a promotion.

[JoeEllison]

Looking at the the final warning and Harvey's letter, it seems like Harvey doesn't know why he was fired. The final warning warns Harvey about three things: 1) Not respecting other faiths. 2) Shoving his clerical duties onto his bosses' secretary. (Pause for irony.) And 3) not doing his bureaucratic duties on the hospital computer system.

When I looked 1) on the final warning, I noticed that it never accuses Harvey of praying in the name of Jesus with patients who don't want it. Rather, it states that Harvey prayed in the name of Jesus at Leadership. Maybe I'm off base, but Leadership sounds like a regular meeting of Hospital middle-management. The warning also mentions Team Members (ie, co-workers) So it seems like Harvey wasn't pushing his religion on the patients, but on the staff.

Harvey's letter focuses entirely on his interaction with the patients. His script, the volunteers. It makes no mention of the staff, or his unwillingness to do the boring parts of the job. Both the final warning and Harvey's letter mention Harvey getting a promotion.Could it be that he's a liar?

[fanboy]

Could it be that he's a liar?Of course he could be a liar. But the letter he wrote shows more that, if he's being deceptive, that he's using misdirection rather than lying.

[Hardenbergh]

Looking at the the final warning and Harvey's letter, it seems like Harvey doesn't know why he was fired. The final warning warns Harvey about three things: 1) Not respecting other faiths. 2) Shoving his clerical duties onto his bosses' secretary. (Pause for irony.) And 3) not doing his bureaucratic duties on the hospital computer system.

When I looked 1) on the final warning, I noticed that it never accuses Harvey of praying in the name of Jesus with patients who don't want it. Rather, it states that Harvey prayed in the name of Jesus at Leadership. Maybe I'm off base, but Leadership sounds like a regular meeting of Hospital middle-management. The warning also mentions Team Members (ie, co-workers) So it seems like Harvey wasn't pushing his religion on the patients, but on the staff.

Harvey's letter focuses entirely on his interaction with the patients. His script, the volunteers. It makes no mention of the staff, or his unwillingness to do the boring parts of the job. Both the final warning and Harvey's letter mention Harvey getting a promotion.

Are you referring to his being considered for a promotion?

In addition, Danny has requested to be moved into a system role as Director of Chaplain/Pastoral Care. At this time, I have elected not to move Danny into this role as he is unable to successfully perform his duties at LRMC, it would not be appropriate to move him over the system giving him additional responsibility. I will be evaluating the structure of Pastoral Care over the next few weeks and will make a determination as to the structure in the near future.

http://www.prayinjesusname.org/Frenzy11/HarveyProof.pdf (page 3)

In Danny's letter, he mentions a promotion as part of the resolution on his returning to work:

That I be considered for the position of system-wide Director of Pastoral Care and that my salary be raised to the average salary of those in Management at LRMC.

http://www.prayinjesusname.org/Frenzy11/HarveyPetition.pdf (page 2)

[fanboy]

Yes. The final warning, as you quoted, notes that Harvey isn't going to be promoted because he has to much to work on in the job he's in now.

Asking for a promotion after you've been fired is a special kind of hubris that should be studied by psychologists in the same manner that they study Video Game violence. :D

[joobz]

Are you referring to his being considered for a promotion?



http://www.prayinjesusname.org/Frenzy11/HarveyProof.pdf (page 3)

In Danny's letter, he mentions a promotion as part of the resolution on his returning to work:



http://www.prayinjesusname.org/Frenzy11/HarveyPetition.pdf (page 2)

Wow, that is certainly a new lesson in arrogance and conceit.
I guess not doing your duties on the job and forcing your religion on others is worthy of promotion and a salary increase.
Where do I sign up?:rolleyes:

I can't see why any religious group would want to associate themselves with such individuals.

[drkitten]

Yes. The final warning, as you quoted, notes that Harvey isn't going to be promoted because he has to much to work on in the job he's in now.

Asking for a promotion after you've been fired is a special kind of hubris that should be studied by psychologists in the same manner that they study Video Game violence.

I don't think so, alas. He's not "asking for a promotion after he's been fired"; he's "asking for a promotion after he's been fired (in his mind) illegally as a price for dropping the lawsuit that (he thinks) he's almost sure to win."

I assure you -- if my dept head fired me illegally, I wouldn't simply go cap in hand to the university president and say "pretty please, take me back. I won't make trouble." My lawyer would go to the university president and say "We're asking for fifty million in damages. We'll settle for two million in cash, a promotion to dean-without-portfolio, a lifetime contract that says you can never fire drkitten for any reason whatsoever, and a guaranteed ten percent per year merit raise over the duration of the contract."

Danny is perhaps more polite than my lawyer would be. But the ultimatum is there : "If I do not hear from you by Friday, September 14 at noon, I will be contacting the EEOC."

[fanboy]

he's "asking for a promotion after he's been fired (in his mind) illegally as a price for dropping the lawsuit that (he thinks) he's almost sure to win."You're right.

I understand why he's asking for a promotion. It still makes me giggle. Especially sense one of the documents attached to his letter (the final warning) specifically states that he's not getting one.

I assure you -- if my dept head fired me illegally, I wouldn't simply go cap in hand to the university president and say "pretty please, take me back. I won't make trouble." My lawyer would go to the university president and say "We're asking for fifty million in damages. We'll settle for two million in cash, a promotion to dean-without-portfolio, a lifetime contract that says you can never fire drkitten for any reason whatsoever, and a guaranteed ten percent per year merit raise over the duration of the contract."This is why at the University of California they prefer to pressure you into resigning of committing suicide. Makes it harder for the plaintiff to win a wrongful termination suite. :D

Danny is perhaps more polite than my lawyer would be. But the ultimatum is there : "If I do not hear from you by Friday, September 14 at noon, I will be contacting the EEOC."I agree. Danny was probably more polite than any lawyer would be. Comparing the letter from the hospital lawyer and the letter from Danny Harvey defiantly supports that conclusion.