Posted on 09/14/2006 10:29:02 AM PDT by Dubya
That's hardly a solution for the deliberate misconduct of one fool. As for the tortured example you present, you're again...WRONG.
Wrong. That event could indeed happen under the rules we're talking about. One more time: The problem is that the guy wore his uniform to a POLITICAL function. Not a funeral, not a religious service, not a wedding, not any legitimate gathering but a POLITICAL function which is proscribed by the UCMJ.
Under the current orders as you understand them...
Lance Cpl. Chris Hankins, 19, is baptized by a Navy chaplain during a spontaneous ceremony held in a Fallouja schoolhouse. Hankins was inspired to deepen his religious commitment after a friend was killed in battle days earlier.
Is this Chaplain disobeying a legal order?
Your problem is you are wrong over and over again. You can't separate reality from your apparent prejudices. Good night.
Next you are going to tell me that a member of the military or a Chaplain can't wear their uniform while meeting with the President.
Under the current regulations is this Chaplain disobeying orders by preaching to our troops while in uniform?
You're just not listening. Praying and/or preaching has nothing to do with it. He wore his uniform to a political function, and you can't do that.
I particularly like the second to last line...
I will never use that power in ways that violate the personhood of another human being, religiously, emotionally or sexually.
Pure PC unnecessary mung if there ever was some.
He's a chaplain, there to serve the troops. The rank is for the convenience of the military. I think the chaplain corps should be separate from the individual services.
Klingenschmitt deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor. Folks, please call the White House and Senator John Warner, Lindsey Graham. We have to reverse this. Its evil, stupid, wicked, wrong, and anti-American. Imagine what the Islamists are thinking looking at America forbidding its own Chaplains from praying in the Name of its own religion. They are mocking us and celebrating. We MUST OPPOSE THIS.
He wore it to meet with the president to appeal to the president to change the regulations, he prayed after he was unable to do so.
No, he didn't. That is a deliberate mischaracterization of the rally.
Unless you think that the President should meet with every fool who shows up for a protest outside the White House?
He wore his uniform to a political rally. He doesn't like Pentagon policy, and he thought that by staging a political rally he could get it changed. If a Muslim chaplain or a gay soldier did that, I suspect that you'd want him strung up.
No, the order he disobeyed is based on a much older regulatio:
11002. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVES PERTAINING TO UNIFORMS
1. Implementing 10 U.S.C. 772, the President, by Executive Order 10554 of 18 August 1954, delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to prescribe regulations under which persons may wear the uniform. The following excerpts from DoD Directive 1334.1 of 11 August 1969 outline these regulations:
a. Members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of reserve components). The wearing of the uniform is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
(1) At any meeting or demonstration which is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which the Attorney General of the United States has designated, pursuant to E.O. 10450, as amended as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under The Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
(2) During or in connection with the furtherance of political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest could be drawn.
(3) Except when authorized by competent Service authority, when participating in activities such as public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration (including those pertaining to civil rights), which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.
(4) When wearing of the uniform would tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
(5) When specifically prohibited by regulations of the department concerned.
Does a Chaplain have the right to follow his religious faith and convictions?
Honestly that is his reason for being a Chaplain isn't it?
And for fourteen years this man was an outstanding Chaplain, any reasonable man would ask themselves why he would risk losing it all by disobeyng an "order" he thought was clearly illegal.
Could it be that he saw a shift in policy that he was unwilling to abide by, a change so dramatic that he could not keep quiet about it, a regulation that would force Chaplains to pray in a way was so sterile it would not even offend an atheist?
Openly, actively, and publicly disobeying any regulations is not something that any Officers do lightly, and when they choose do so we should at least ask ourselves why and I haven't seen that from those that are quoting the chapters and verse of the regulations.
If a chaplain believes he cannot follow the regulations of the military branch he is serving in while at the same time following his religious convictions then he should resign and return to civilian life.
Honestly that is his reason for being a Chaplain isn't it?
If his sole concern is following his religious convictions then he has to reason being a chaplain. His reason for being is to serve the soldiers and sailors in his care and provide for their emotional as well as spiritual well being. Egoists like Klingenschmitt seems to be, with his own agenda and his inability to understand that part of his responsibility is to support the command through his example of following orders, are unfit for duty as chaplains and should find their career in the civilian sector.
And for fourteen years this man was an outstanding Chaplain, any reasonable man would ask themselves why he would risk losing it all by disobeyng an "order" he thought was clearly illegal.
Actually Klingenschmitt has been a chaplain for only about 4 years, and apparently has had problems with his commander in all his duty stations. Prior to that he was a line officer in the Air Force.
Could it be that he saw a shift in policy that he was unwilling to abide by, a change so dramatic that he could not keep quiet about it, a regulation that would force Chaplains to pray in a way was so sterile it would not even offend an atheist?
No, those regulations predate his commission as a chaplain, and he knew they were in place when he joined. Even so, if he had a problem with them and wanted to protest then he was free to do so. But not while wearing his uniform.
Openly, actively, and publicly disobeying any regulations is not something that any Officers do lightly, and when they choose do so we should at least ask ourselves why and I haven't seen that from those that are quoting the chapters and verse of the regulations.
And when they choose to disobey those orders then they should be prepared to accept the consequences. If we say that Klingenschmitt was free to disobey lawful orders because he felt it was justified then where do we draw the line? Do we allow anyone to disobey orders because they say their conscious says to? Those who desert or refuse to serve in a combat zone? What about them?
I'd like to share a sad store with you of an order given by a young Lieutenant to a platoon of Marines at Camp Lejeune. It was during a night landing in a LZ The Lieutenant and his men were aboard a CH-53, and it was brought into hover over the LZ while the crew tried to determine if the 53 would fit into the LZ, the rear ramp was lowered so the crew chief could look out the rear when the Lieutenant gave the order to his men to exit the aircraft.
They were 500ft above the treeline at the time and the lone crewchief was only able to tackle the Lieutenant before he too plunged into the darkness below. Sometimes you have to question orders and protest them as well, because you never know what might happen when you don't.
And where was this an illegal regulation or order?
I'm dangerously close to breaking Godwin's Law here, as Americans we are expected to know what orders and regulations may be illegal and if necessary disobey them for the good of the country and our military.
You have not illustrated in any form that the regulations are illegal. That's the first burden you must meet.
This clown's defenders have steadfastly refused to state the grounds for this order being illegal, except that they don't like it. Seems there is no other justification for such bizarre hyperbole.
Sometimes you have to question orders and protest them as well
Sometimes you do. But that doesn't shield you from the consequences.
There is a perfectly legitimate way to protest Pentagon policy. He is free to march as a civilian, just as we all are. But once he puts on his uniform, he is expected to conform to a code of conduct, and that includes abstaining from political rallies.
If protesting for a cause means that much to you, you must then accept the consequences of your actions.
I swear, I never thought I'd see the day where self-described conservatives argue against standards and for special rights.
No, he isn't. That is a voluntary event. The restriction is against sectarian prayers at mandatory events--i.e., where one can get sent to the stockade for no-showing.
1. It's the "Medal of Honor," as anyone who has ever been through recruit training in the Armed Forces should know.
2. The Medal of Honor is awarded for gallantry and heroism above and beyond the call of duty, in direct combat against an enemy armed force. Klingenschmitt is
3. Another requirement is that the awardee must not be violating standing or specific orders, or otherwise violating the UCMJ. Klingenschmitt was violating several articles of the UCMJ, including a long-standing prohibition on wearing the uniform for purposes of political lobbying, and was very lightly punished for doing so.
You have managed to insult those whose bravery and self-sacrifice stand in marked contrast to Chaplain Klingenschmitt's "it's all about ME!" attitude by suggesting that he be given the nation's highest award for valor.
Imagine what the Islamists are thinking looking at America forbidding its own Chaplains from praying in the Name of its own religion.
1. America does not have a state religion. I thought conservatives had actually read the Constitution enough to understand this.
2. Chaplain Klingenschmitt is not restricted from praying in the name of Jesus Christ at worship services he conducts. He is restricted--as are ALL chaplains, including Jewish and Muslim chaplains--from offering sectarian prayers at mandatory functions where attendance by servicemembers is required under pain of court-martial and incarceration.
Some people think LT Watada is a hero also. I think he's just toast.
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.