Posted on 02/14/2006 11:26:47 AM PST by JZelle
An evangelical chaplain serving in Iraq has been forbidden to preach at chapel services after his comments about military intolerance toward certain Christian expressions got him into hot water with the Army. Capt. Jonathan Stertzbach, a field artillery chaplain with the Army's 10th Mountain Division in Iraq, was silenced soon after his comments appeared in a Jan. 23 article in The Washington Times. The chaplain criticized one of his supervisors, Lt. Col. Phillip Wright of Fort Drum in New York, by name and gave details about how chaplains of all faiths were being pressured to offer up only nonsectarian prayers. Contacted in Iraq yesterday by The Times, Capt. Stertzbach confirmed he had been silenced.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Yes, he's held to the same standard, but the issue here is a direct facet of his religion, and therefore also directly impacts his duty before God to adhere to his religious beliefs. The superior issued an arguably illegal order - considering that the chaplain's oath as an officer must coexist with his ordainment as a minister.
He will be punished. Heaven knows the military does not tolerate dissenters well - even when the dissent is warranted. In my opinion, it was warranted in this case.
Would you please cite that rule?
Unless and until the rules change, soldiers (and chaplains) are bound by them.
You can dissent, but it has to be done right. This man is an officer in the U.S Army, and as such knows how things are done. He knows you can't go whining to a newspaper because you feel an order is wrong. I don't know what the Army calls the process, but in the Marine Corps it's called Request Mast. This is the procedure that would be used in this case.
"Tough luck, lots of rules come and go. The Army is no exception."
That's quite true. But, while the rules exist, military personnel are required to follow them. Changing them is possible, but there is a process.
Non-denominational services and prayers have been part of the military at public functions for a long, long time. Even back in the late 1960s, when I was in the USAF, functions open to all involved non-denominational prayers for things like invocations and the like.
Nobody has EVER told a chaplain that he could not pray in the name of a deity in chapel services. But, in general functions, like a memorial service, where the attendees might be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any of the other faiths that Chaplains are required to minister to, prayers are done in a non-demoninational way, in respect for those in attendance.
That's how it is.
Yes and part of the process is going public wither you agree or not.
"Yes and part of the process is going public wither you agree or not."
OK, but if you're in the military, "going public" has consequences. If the person accepts those consequences, then more power to him.
Contacted in Iraq yesterday by The Times, Capt. Stertzbach confirmed he had been silenced. "I am not allowed to talk to anyone right now," he said. "There are no hard feelings, and I have to leave it at that."
The story isn't very clear on that. Is it just Protestants of all denominations, all Christians, or is it all faiths, including Muslims, that must be included in the "non sectarian" prayers. IOW, was he forbidden to pray "In Jesus Name" or to "God the father, son, and holy spirit"?
Some adjustments must be made, as in a Catholic priest conducting services for Russian orthodox soldiers, but to ask a Christan minister to not mention Christ, would be way over the line. It might even constitute an illegal order. Illegal orders need not be obeyed, but you'd best be very confident of your assessment that they are indeed illegal. Just thinking they are isn't enough, the Court Martial must agree that they were.
I take that back, the story does say, on page 2.
Capt. Stertzbach cited a Dec. 17 memorial service for a soldier at which he was asked to pray.
When he told one chaplain he intended to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, he was stricken from the service program. A senior officer had to intervene to allow Capt. Stertzbach a time in the service to pray as he wished.
Even that prayer had to be prefaced with "in Thy name we pray" before the chaplain could add, "And in Jesus' name, I pray."
Sort of throws a different light on the subject. If the soldier was a Christian, and why else would a Protestant Chaplin be included in the service, rather than a Rabbi or Imam, then that soldier deserved to prayed over "in Jesus Name".
These are after all Chaplains, not Political Commissars.
It wasn't really clear to me whether LTC Wright was a technical chain supervisor or a command chain supervisor. Chaplains must answer to their line commanders and also to a chain of supervisory chaplains. My guess is that it's his command chain supervisor, probably his battalion commander.
If he did not attempt to go through his chain of command and his technical chain BEFORE he spoke to a newspaper, then the chaplain is wrong. Obviously, he knew his praying in Jesus' name at a command required event would be an issue. Otherwise, he wouldn't have brought it up. (The old adage: better to ask forgiveness than permission.)
He should have asked to be relieved of the assignment if he could not in good conscience perform it.
However, he should not be forced to participate in a government created neutral religion. If he is required to pray, then he should be permitted to be himself.
ALL OF THIS takes a back seat initially to whether or not he attempted first to address this throughout his chain of command.
His army career is probably over unless he's a baby chaplain. As a battalion chaplain in an Arty slot, that's a good possibility.
According to the story, the order was overruled by a senior officer, but this guy still went public against his chain of command. Like I said, this guy doesn't seem to be Army material.
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.