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.
Whats your point?
"Do as I say or I'm gonna have my buddy Jesus beat you up!"
Sheesh. It's folks like this that convinced me to be a born-again pagan.
"What part of the phrase 'lawful general order or regulation' are you finding so hard to understand? "
When did confessing your faith become illegal?
I'm not the one posting a cryptic verse from the New Testament. What point were you trying to make?
He was charged and convicted of disobeying his superior officer's order not to wearing his uniform during media appearances without prior permission. Or didn't you read the story?
It's not a Constitutional issue. The Navy is governed by the UCMJ and Navy Regulations. Anyone in the military voluntarily gives up some of the Constitutional rights other citizens have, including full First Amendment rights.
"Because, by offering prayers specific to his denomination at public events where sailors are required to attend (as opposed to denominational worship services, which are voluntary in nature), he is violating the rights of those sailors who do not believe as he does."
Multiculturism gone crazy - This is judeo-christian nation - if you have any doubt go to DC. He is not "violatiing" the other sailors rights. To suggest such is without historical standing. Perhaps you can show me this 'right' that sailors supposedly have.
"Wearing a uniform at a political rally--illegal.
Disobeying specific written order from his admiral--illegal.
Verbally trashing his chain of command from the President downward--illegal.
Being a complete a$$hat in uniform--illegal ("conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman"). "
Illegal and unlawful not immoral or unethical. Big difference.
"Navy has to respect not only his rights, but the rights of sailors who may not believe as he does but are required to be present for events where he holds forth."
So what about an ardent atheist - isnt he offended then if he even uses the term God? Multiculturism is great isnt it?
We cant offend the atheist then can we? Where do we stop? Its obvious you havent thought this out.
It's perfectly legal, within certain limits. One of those limits is that you do not pray in denomination-specific prayers when it's a command ceremony where attendance is mandatory.
He wasn't charged with actions that were immoral or unethical, he was charged with actions that were illegal and unlawful. And convicted of it, too. He really should find another career, the military sure doesn't seem to suit him.
So you think that
He is not "violatiing" the other sailors rights.
The only way you can argue that is if you argue that Klingenschmitt's rights are unrestricted, but the rights of sailors other than Klingenschmitt do not exist.
To suggest such is without historical standing.
So you would be OK with being forced, under pain of court-martial and time in the stockade, to listen to Islamic-specific prayers from a Muslim chaplain. Do I have that correct?
Perhaps you can show me this 'right' that sailors supposedly have.
No, how about you showing me where a preacher can prosletyze a captive audience, said audience not being allowed to leave under penalty of court-martial.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
First, military personnel engaging in political speech in uniform is illegal AND immoral, because the military is subservient to the civil authority. To allow the military to engage in politics in uniform is to allow the military to give orders to the president, and that is insubordination, which is extremely immoral when one has given one's word of honor by taking a commissioning oath.
So what about an ardent atheist - isnt he offended then if he even uses the term God?
OK, I give you two choices:
1. Go AWOL, and get a felony conviction.
2. You must listen attentively to a Muslim chaplain offering prayers to Allah, and passages from the Koran that call for killing infidels.
OK, take your pick. Which one do you go for?
No, he was convicted and reprimanded for violating orders, engaging in political speech in uniform, verbally trashing the chain of command from the President down, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.
Wanna take bets if he had invoked Allah's Name, NOTHING would have happened to him?
Fine. How much are you betting?
Does the Free Exercise clause allow a civilian minister to prosletyze people not of his faith, who are not allowed to leave said prosletyzation under pain of a felony conviction?
Oh contraire, sas. I do believe it is you who are reacting to the story and not thinking it out. The Chaplain violated a number of rules of the UCMJ and was convicted of violating a direct order not to participate in a political rally while in uniform. He could have had the book thrown at him, but they only through a page at him.
No one who wears the uniform of the armed services is entitled to willy nilly disobey direct orders from the commander. If Klingenschmitt could do so then all military decorum and discipline would have to be thrown out the window.
Yes it may be wrong not to allow our Military Chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus at public functions while in uniform. That is a rule that ought to be changed. But that is not what Klingenschmitt was convicted of doing. What he was convicted of doing was wearing the uniform of the armed services while participating and speaking at a political rally after being ordered not to do so.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
"So what about an ardent atheist - isnt he offended then if he even uses the term God?"
So you didnt answer my question - why not? What about the atheist- doesnt he have rights too. Or how about the Satanist shouldnt he have rights too? Slippery slope when we consider all religions. Shouldnt the term God be banned then? Please try it again.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
"What he was convicted of doing was wearing the uniform of the armed services while participating and speaking at a political rally after being ordered not to do so."
Remind me, what was the name of this political rally? Was it democrat or republican?
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.