If he cannot obey the orders given to him by the Navy, he needs to find something else to do for a living.
It is a disgrace to call a man's prayer "political lobbying". All the man did was pray. He didn't talk to reporters. He said precisely nothing else besides the prayer while in uniform.
The entire purpose of the event was to lobby the President for a change in policy. He is free to do that in civilian attire. He is not free to do that in uniform.
"America does not have a state religion". Yes it does.
Go back and reread the Establishment Clause.
87% of the people are Christian. 2% are Jewish.
And 100% of the people have the inherent right to not be forced to be present and attentive to prosletyzation for a religion that they disagree with.
Would you be OK with a Muslim chaplain, at a mandatory formation, offering Islamic-specific prayers and/or readings from the Koran?
BTW, I keep asking that question. I never get an answer.
The monuments of our capitol are riddled with Christian and Jewish quotes, Biblical citations.
But it is the law of the land that Christian and Jewish doctrines are to be coercively expunged from the public sector. It is the law of the courts that Christian and Jewish laws are to be removed from schools. It is now the law of the Navy that Christian prayer may be censored at the Secretary's will.
The Secretary of the Navy also
The official and legally established religion of the United States of America is anti-Christianity.
It is also, by that construction, anti-Islam, anti-Mormon, anti-Buddhist, and anti-a-bunch-of-other-religions-too.
This is legally accepted, supported, and practiced. In keeping with this established religion, a Chaplain has been court-martialed for refusing to obey the state religion.
Another candidate for:
For openly supporting the spirit of the Consitution in defiance of this state religion, I have upheld the valor of the medal winners, pointing out a man who is willing to face personal destruction for the sake of resisting a tyrannical and anti-religious-freedom power trying to take away his right to free conscience.
Again, let's change the faith in question: it's a Muslim chaplain, offering Islamic prayers.
Still OK with forcing the sailors to stand there and listen, or will you scream bloody murder about the Christian sailors' RIGHT to not be prosletyzed by a Muslim backed with the authority of the commanding officer? Will I ever get a straight-up answer to that question, or will I continue to get a deafening silence?
"Chaplain Klingenschmitt is not restricted from praying in the name of Jesus Christ at worship services." You are openly wrong. The new restriction and power is that the Navy Secretary has taken for himself the authority to arbitrarily define when "worship services" exist and when they do not.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the difference is
Neat little trick, eh? A man's conscience, which previously defined when he was worshipping and when he was not, has been usurped.
A change of command ceremony is a worship service?
the Navy Sec. has now decreed that the Chaplain worships only 1 hour a week! Sunday morning! And so the large restriction has been placed. That is the evil.
"He is restricted--as are ALL chaplains, including Jewish and Muslim chaplains--from offering sectarian prayers at mandatory functions" -- You write this as though it were good to destroy the freedom of the Chaplain's conscience so that he might be forced to conform to the government religion which mandates neutered prayers?
He is free to offer a prayer, or not offer a prayer. If he cannot offer a prayer within the guidelines of the Secretary of the Navy's instruction, he can always say, "Sir, I can't offer a prayer of that nature in good conscience, could you find someone else, please?"
And the commanding officer would go and find someone else.
You are deeply concerned about passive people being offended by the free expression of an active person's religion.
Those passive people are there, and participating in that ceremony, because they have been ordered to do so, and may be put in jail for disobeying that order.
But it is impossible to police the activiites of others in order to ensure the non-offense of all - unless you completely control all speech at all times.
Are you OK with the notion that a pastor in your town can get the sheriff to round people up and hold them in his church, under penalty of jail time, while he preaches at them?
That is the closest civilian analogy
You are totally unworried, on the other hand, by the religious coercion forced on the Chaplain, the active participant in religion, not the spectator.
He has the option of not participating. The sailors in ranks don't have that same liberty.
Offending and restricting him is fine so that some passive people who agree with censorship might not be offended.
He has the option of just saying "no."
But where is your consideration of the people who are offended by the censorship?
Again, contemplate the difference between "voluntary" and "mandatory."
Why is it OK to offend people by editing out their faith, leaving only the government approved faith?
I will explain this to you once again.
The chaplain's participation in change of command ceremonies and the like--by offering the invocation--is voluntary; he is free to decline without penalty. The participation of the sailors in that ceremony is mandatory; they may get prison time for not being there, or for attempting to leave.
One is voluntary; one is mandatory.