Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jurors want reprimand for Navy chaplain
Associated Press ^ | Sep. 14, 2006 | SONJA BARISIC

Posted on 09/14/2006 10:29:02 AM PDT by Dubya

NORFOLK, Va. - A jury recommended Thursday that a Navy chaplain receive a letter of reprimand for disobeying an order by appearing in uniform at a political news conference at the White House.

The jury also recommended that Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt forfeit $250 pay per month for a year but suggested that the monetary punishment be suspended.

Rear Adm. Frederic Ruhe, commander of the Navy's Mid-Atlantic Region, must decide whether to approve the recommendation.

The jury of five officers at Klingenschmitt's special court-martial determined Wednesday that he had disobeyed a superior officer's order prohibiting him from wearing his uniform during media appearances without prior permission.

Klingenschmitt said he believes he was punished for making a political speech in uniform because he prayed in Jesus' name. He had argued that he was allowed to wear his uniform if conducting a "bona fide worship service."

"I will continue to pray in Jesus' name, I will continue to worship in public and I will not be broken," he said Wednesday.

He said he would appeal the conviction and fight to remain a chaplain. He said senior naval officials had already decided to fire him before the March 30 event, which protested Navy policy requiring nondenominational prayers outside of religious services.

Last December, the chaplain went on an 18-day hunger strike in front of the White House over the right to invoke Jesus' name outside such services.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: firstamendment; klingenschmitt; militarychaplain; moralabsolutes; navychaplain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-213 next last
To: LiteKeeper

The most chilling thing about Post #93 is that it favors the worst sort of judicial activism.


101 posted on 09/15/2006 9:34:07 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: timer; LiteKeeper; BeHoldAPaleHorse; GATOR NAVY; highball
This incident is manna from heaven to the liberals, they'll blare it constantly in ads : Bush won't stand by fellow christian being persecuted.

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.

102 posted on 09/15/2006 9:39:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Wristpin
Just boot this 10 percenter out...He's already proven to be a cancer on the COC.

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.

103 posted on 09/15/2006 9:48:53 AM PDT by MrEdd (The easiest way to LIE with statistics is to use the average instead of the Median.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse; sasafras
Do you, as a Christian, have the right to force atheists to listen to your prayers and preaching? Does a Muslim have the right to force you to listen to his prayers and preaching?

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.

104 posted on 09/15/2006 9:53:23 AM PDT by MrEdd (The easiest way to LIE with statistics is to use the average instead of the Median.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
Chaplains in the U.S. military Have never had command authority for just that reason.

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?

105 posted on 09/15/2006 9:58:58 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
No one has a right to never hear things they don't like, Mohamed - see the second paragraph of the first amendment (below). But the troops aren't forced to do anything. Religious provisions that are made available because if there really is some kind of God or afterlife then this matters to those who may die in the course of their duties.

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?

106 posted on 09/15/2006 10:24:08 AM PDT by MrEdd (The easiest way to LIE with statistics is to use the average instead of the Median.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
No one has a right to never hear things they don't like, Mohamed - see the second paragraph of the first amendment (below).

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?

107 posted on 09/15/2006 10:27:07 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
The point: the chaplain does not have a right to an audience for his preaching.

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?

108 posted on 09/15/2006 10:28:15 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

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.


109 posted on 09/15/2006 10:33:00 AM PDT by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse; GATOR NAVY
You have no point The right to not hear things you don't want to hear is not a right, Mohamed. It exists nowhere in the law.

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.

110 posted on 09/15/2006 10:39:04 AM PDT by MrEdd (The easiest way to LIE with statistics is to use the average instead of the Median.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach
I just don't understand the problem here. The guy's a US Navy Chaplain. So, he got a court martial because he wore his uniform to some type of political event in front of the White House? Is that it?

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.


111 posted on 09/15/2006 10:44:29 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
The second amendment applies to the troops, BeHoldAPaleHorse.

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?

112 posted on 09/15/2006 10:45:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Wristpin
His main beef is that he can't prosyletize 24/7.

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!

113 posted on 09/15/2006 10:59:48 AM PDT by MrEdd (The easiest way to LIE with statistics is to use the average instead of the Median.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dubya; wagglebee

Ping for Moralabsolutes, if you concur on what the thread has turned into.


114 posted on 09/15/2006 11:03:50 AM PDT by MrEdd (The easiest way to LIE with statistics is to use the average instead of the Median.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
I can't help but notice that you haven't addressed the essential issue concerning this case, which is that he wore his uniform while speaking at a political protest against military regulations.

Are you honestly telling us that:

  1. you believe members of our Armed Forces have the right to disregard regulations they don't like; and
  2. you would fully support a Muslim chaplain's right to wear his uniform while addressing a political rally protesting military policy?

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.

115 posted on 09/15/2006 11:06:54 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

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!


116 posted on 09/15/2006 11:15:48 AM PDT by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Wristpin
And when a high profile challenge of an UNLAWFUL ORDER causes journalists to gather around the Chaplin in his uniform, Claiming that that was a political event is a trumped up charge. You wriggle and try to weasel with the best of them wristpin, but you can not make this not a trumped up charge anymore than you were able to make Proselytizing a crime in your earlier effort.
117 posted on 09/15/2006 11:29:39 AM PDT by MrEdd (The easiest way to LIE with statistics is to use the average instead of the Median.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

But he was found Guilty EDD...Guilty as SIN!


118 posted on 09/15/2006 11:37:52 AM PDT by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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.


119 posted on 09/15/2006 11:39:27 AM PDT by timer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: highball
you believe members of our Armed Forces have the right to disregard regulations they don't like; and

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...

120 posted on 09/15/2006 11:41:12 AM PDT by MrEdd (The easiest way to LIE with statistics is to use the average instead of the Median.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-213 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson