Yep. That is exactly it.
One of the bedrock principles of the U.S. military that separates it from the militaries of banana republics is that you do NOT get the military involved in partisan politics.
Posted on 09/14/2006 10:29:02 AM PDT by Dubya
The most chilling thing about Post #93 is that it favors the worst sort of judicial activism.
In the first place he wasn't being persecuted he was being disciplined for disobeying orders. And in the second I would wager anything you want that after a week or so we never hear of this complete non-issue again.
As were you. You can't distinguish the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful order. And a press gathering regarding the man and the unlawful he was already under semantically turns into a "political Event"?
Logic isn't your strong point either.
Chaplains in the U.S. military Have never had command authority for just that reason. Thank you for displaying ignorance of the military and bringing up a non-issue to try to support your position.
OK, so you're saying that if someone's offended by the chaplain's invocation at a change of command ceremony, he can just break ranks and walk out, right?
The second amendment applies to the troops, BeHoldAPaleHorse. Do you have some kind of point somewhere other than "I don't like hearing it"? If military personnel are not provided that fulfill the role of preachers (the definition of Chaplain), Then the military would be required to allow civilian preachers - on ship, on plains, and on the field of battle. The military provides chaplains for the same reason it provides military doctors - to have people in those roles who are vetted and connected to the command structure.
The UCMJ is not the same as civilian law, BeHoldAPaleHorse. But, your antipathy notwithstanding the troops who are religious still have a constitutional right to exercise their religion. including prayer and preaching and even singing (off key, usually).The right to shut people up who do so is not in the Constitution and the chain of command doesn't have it either.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Any other portions of the bill of rights you want to get rid of?
My name isn't Mohamed.
The second amendment applies to the troops, BeHoldAPaleHorse.
You mean they can shoot the chaplain if he annoys them overmuch?
Would you be perfectly OK with a Muslim chaplain, at a mandatory command function, giving prayers to Allah and reciting suras from the Koran about all infidels are going to hell?
Nice EDD...Way to lash out!
His orders are to refer any inquiring media request to the appropriate Public Affairs Officer. But we both know this was premeditated protest.....
This LT has been all over the media for at least a year now. I actually listened to him on a radio program..His Captain had to take the time to call a correct the record of lies he spewed about the Navy. His main beef is that he can't prosyletize 24/7. That's not his job in the Navy and he is afforded the opportunity to perform voluntary denominational services at the appropriate time and place.
He had to be transferred of his ship due to his uncontrollable behavior and complaints from his Sailors. The Navy needs Chaplains providing to the spiritual needs of Sailors and Marines in the Middle East..but this joker can't be used because he's intentionally getting himself Court Martialed!
BTW EDD... A Chaplain gave a nice nondenominational invocation at my retirement ceremony. I don't see the LT making it to retirement with his 10 percenter fitreps.
I don't want to hear about sports. You may not want to hear about religion. We don't have a right to not hear those things we don't like.
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
That means exactly what it says, BeHoldAPaleHorse. No matter how much you (and the ACLU) want it to mean something else. Neither you personally, nor your group of hypothetical nonreligious troops have a right to abridge the chaplain's freedom of speech. Nor can the chain of command lawfully do so.
Yep. That is exactly it.
One of the bedrock principles of the U.S. military that separates it from the militaries of banana republics is that you do NOT get the military involved in partisan politics.
The right to bear arms? What do you want the troops to the chaplain? Shoot him?
The UCMJ is not the same as civilian law, BeHoldAPaleHorse. But, your antipathy notwithstanding the troops who are religious still have a constitutional right to exercise their religion. including prayer and preaching and even singing (off key, usually).The right to shut people up who do so is not in the Constitution and the chain of command doesn't have it either.
Except, as the article made perfectly clear if only you had read it, Klingenschmidt was not conducting a church service. He was participating in a political protest. And he had been ordered not to wear his uniform while doing so. So you tell me what part of the Constitution gives this particular officer the right to disobey orders?
So the first amendment was changed to exclude religiose traditions that believe their god wants them to spend their time prosyletizing. I missed that whole amendment debate, Wristpin, or did it never happen. Tell me Wristpin, who do You propose we get to detirmine what religions are dis-allowed.
How did you even come up with this no prosyletizing thing, and how did you ever think it wasn't simple biggotry.
And darn those people who fight unlawful orders through the system why won't they just shut up. You're a piece of work, Wristpin.
The Navy needs Chaplains providing to the spiritual needs of Sailors and Marines in the Middle East..but this joker can't be used because he's intentionally getting himself Court Martialed challenging an unlawful order!
Ping for Moralabsolutes, if you concur on what the thread has turned into.
Are you honestly telling us that:
Those are the two questions that this clown's supporters keep refusing to answer.
I suspect that such refusal is because they're really looking for special treatment, as is Klingenschmitt.
The regs governing Protesting in Uniform and media contacts have be on the books for eons.
No one has stripped the LT of his First Amendments Rights.
He can go as Gordon Klingenscmidt..public citizen. He can't do it as LT Klingenscmidt. Pretty simple really.
Punishhment as Court Martial may direct!
But he was found Guilty EDD...Guilty as SIN!
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. This incident is exactly what the drive-by/bush-bashing media feeds on. Elections hinge on purely trivial matters like this. A savvy pol-spinner knows just how to use this. Ask Mike Taylor, R-candidate running against Sen baucus last election, about trivia and political dirty tricks.
Funny how you try to pussyfoot around whether or not an unlawful order can be a legal regulation. But to be expected - if you can claim it was just a matter of opinion rather than constitutional law then you can get a leg to stand on. Sorry pegleg..
you would fully support a Muslim chaplain's right to wear his uniform while addressing a political rally protesting military policy?
As in this case, if the press approached said Muslim chaplain for answers to their questions regarding proceedings he was involved in, I wouldn't call that a political rally. Nice attempted straw-man on your part though, highball.
Those are the two questions that this clown's supporters keep refusing to answer.
Two rhetorical questions - that you have to misstate the events which have transpired in order to pose...
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.