Posted on 09/14/2006 10:59:33 PM PDT by goldstategop
As I sat in the hearing room, I felt a cold chill – like the chilling effect this court-martial will have on our free speech. For this analogy to be accurate, however, I would need to be sitting in a freezer. At issue in the court-martial of Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, chaplain for the United States Navy, is a name and the freedom to speak it. That name is Jesus. And, according to this week's ruling, the freedom to speak it depends on the context.
Before I could go through the metal detectors to get to the courtroom, a Navy official had already taken Jesus' name in vain. No trial for that. No penalty. No problem. But use the name in reverence, in honor or in prayer, and you'll find yourself looking in the face of a court-martial. Welcome to the criminalization of Christianity.
This case is really about Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter, who ordered that every chaplain in the Navy worship his god – the "government god" of "non-sectarian" goodness who has no name and certainly no son by whom someone might be offended. But Chaplain Klingenschmitt told Navy Secretary Nebuchadnezzar, uh, I mean Winter, that he couldn't bow to his government god and had to proclaim the God of the Bible – who has a Son with an illegal name.
So Chaplain Klingenschmitt spoke the Gospel aboard ship, prayed in that illegal name and preached from that "offensive book" – much to the detriment of his career. But it's a good thing he did, particularly for a sailor who heard the message of the Gospel and dedicated his life to Christ – just before being killed in a motorcycle accident. A secular memorial was held, but many sailors approached the chaplain and asked that he hold a Christian memorial service to honor the sailor's faith. So he did. Attendance was voluntary. But the chaplains "above" him didn't like the content of his sermon. Mentioning Jesus in the chapel (you know, that building with the cross on top), they said, is just "too exclusive." Just who was it that hung on that cross depicted on the official Navy chaplain uniform, again? Maybe they can tell people it's really a lower case "t" – standing for "tepid," "totalitarian" or "triangle" until the new shapes can be issued.
In fact, Klingenschmitt was punished in writing for reading an "illegal verse," and Naval Judge Anita Blair upheld the reprimand. What was the illegal verse? [WARNING! If you are a member of the United States Navy, do NOT, I repeat, do NOT read this verse out loud, or face court martial!]
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. – John 3:36
The judge ruled that the chaplain's freedom wasn't really restricted since he was free to preach a sermon on "other" topics besides Jesus. Like, the measurements of the ark, for instance. Just don't go quoting Bible verses from the New Testament of Jesus Christ and actually mention Jesus Christ.
The chaplain then went on a hunger strike until the Navy said he could pray in uniform again. They said "no speeches" or "opinions," but he was allowed to wear his uniform for "religious observances." That brings us to the event in question – March 30, 2006, where the chaplain engaged in the "religious observance" of prayer. He didn't give a speech. Didn't voice his opinions. In fact, he even turned down questions from reporters because he was wearing his uniform. Quite different from other Navy officers who went on national television and national radio espousing "personal," "partisan" and "political beliefs" while in uniform without any prior permission. The difference? Oh, they were blasting Klingenschmitt, and the Navy agreed with the content of their speech.
Then, Judge Lewis T. Booker, the judge overseeing the court-martial, ruled that the right to "public worship" doesn't include "worshiping in public." Judge Booker said essentially that "public worship" is allowed for one hour on Sunday, and you better use it, because that's the only free exercise of religion you have left, sailor.
And now, five years after we were attacked, our troops are fighting overseas for the freedom of those who pray in the name of Allah at the same time a U.S. chaplain has been court-martialed for praying in the name of Jesus on American soil. Does anyone besides me see something wrong with this? On Monday, Sept. 11, 2006, we gathered to sing "God Bless America," but how likely do you think God will continue to bless us if we are forbidden from using His Son's name?
And where is our beloved commander in chief? The man I worked to elect, who personally told me that the "most important thing" I could do for him was to pray? Cannot our military have that same "most important" right? His number, by the way, is 202-456-1414.
As I was leaving the airport in Norfolk, I saw an advertisement that read: "America will always be the home of the free because it is the land of the brave." When I read it, I cried … because America is no longer the land of the free. Thankfully, there are still are brave Americans like Chaplain Klingenschmitt. If you are among the brave left in the land of the free, I urge you with everything in me to use your freedom while you still can.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is reportedly "still undecided" as to whether the freedom of religion should apply to chaplains. He sits on the conference committee for the Defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5122, and is a critical vote on Section 590 – the amendment that will let the chaplains of all branches of our military pray according to the dictates of their conscience. The toll-free number to reach him is: 1-888-355-3588. Use it to call Sens. John Warner and Carl Levin while you're at it; they're key votes on the committee, as well. The message? Simply: "Let the chaplains pray" – something our Founding Fathers thought was so very important that one of their first acts of the first Congress (after ratifying the First Amendment) was to establish chaplains to do just that.
Of course, you have "the right to remain silent," but if you use that right much longer, those are the words you'll hear before you see the inside of a prison cell. Because if they criminalize Chaplain Klingenschmitt today, tomorrow it's you.
No, what they shouldn't do is violate orders not to wear their uniform to a political demonstration. Which is what Klingenschmidtt did and which is what he was disciplined for.
The order from his superior officer that he not wear his uniform to a political demonstration.
Doing his job as commander-in-chief and letting the local commanders handle their commands.
Gator Navy has 24 years in the navy, I had 25, and between the two of us I think we're capable of identifying a lawful order from an unlawful one. But I'm always will to admit error when I make one. What is your military experience and based on that what makes you think that it was an unlawful order?
Lt. Klingenschmitt didn't get court-martialled for mentioning Jesus in prayer; he got court marshalled for protesting the navy's policies in uniform at a press conference where he bad-mouthed his superior officers. You can't do that in the Navy without expecting a court-martial.
But facts never got in the way of WorldNetDaily whipping up a frenzy.
I vehemently disagree. If the government is going to force some sort of religious exercise upon all its soldiers, it had better remain non-sectarian. Sectarian prayers must be reserved for sectarian services. Time and place.
Nuremburg stands for the proposition that you must disobey a blatently immoral order. It does not stand for the proposition that if you think the order is wrong, you can disobey.
In the military they tell you that, if you disobey an order on the grounds that it is not lawful, you had damned well better be correct. You can't trot that defense out unless its true.
Exactly! He's simply trying to prey upon our sympathies with his "persecuted for uttering the word 'Jesus' in public" story. I've worked with many Navy chaplains over the years and none of them has ever been punished for saying Jesus' name. Indeed, it would be impossible for a Catholic chaplain to say mass without uttering the word.
Here is why your vehement disagreement is wrong.
Chaplains are brought onto military service to represent their denominations. The court has found that chaplains are an accomodation of the constitution in that soldiers in a separated environment MUST be able FULLY to practice their religion. They are to be fully qualified, fully compliant representatives of that denomination.
From time to time they are required to be recertified by their denomination. They are one of the few branches of service in which an individual can be removed from service by other than the military authorities.
Therefore, they MUST represent their faith tradition. And if that tradition includes a "Jesus' Name" prayer, then they are representatives of that tradition. You get what you bring on active duty. You cannot require them (by law) to violate their faith traditions.
The proper response of the government is to have NO prayer. It is not to force a NEUTRAL prayer. That would be creating a government-approved prayer and a government-approved religion.
Why doesn't the government just pull some unsuspecting soldier from the crowd and make him deliver a non-sectarian prayer?
If buttercups buzz'd after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.
Wrong. They did not even prosecute him for praying in Jesus name. They prosecuted him for violating a direct order from his superior. This idiot was the one who did the "set up". He called a rally in front of the white house to engage in a public political protest, He contacted the media and told them he was going to violate the law at this protest. He put his uniform on and violated the order by showing up at the protest. He compounded the issue by holding a press conference in uniform. Then he topped off the fiasco by deliberately disobeying Navy Regs and praying a public prayer "in Jesus name" and then lied about the whole thing by calling the political rally a worship service.
You don't call a press conference at a worship service. Jesus commanded us not to stand on the street corners and pray so that we may be seen by men.
There is no end to the list of idiotic and illegal things this guy did. Quite frankly if he had not called the press to this event he would not have been prosecuted. But by drawing the attention of the media to his folly, the Navy was backed into a corner and was forced to prosecute him. They limited the charges to the disobeyance of a direct order from his superiors. They could have thrown the book at him and charged him with conduct unbecoming an officer, stripped him of his rank and pension and thrown him out of the Navy with a dishonorable discharge. But they didn't.
He’s been a thorn in the side of the PC gang.
Wrong. He's been a thorn in the side of his superiors. He forced them to bring him up on charges.
As far as years 8 in the Marines and 3 1/2 in the Air Force.
My unlawful order contention is based on 20 years of study of the constitution focusing on the original intent. Though not a lawyer I have an extensive library on the subject, and I follow the precept that that document governs what actions our government may take in the same manor that the ten commandments guides Jews in what actions they may morally take. If an order attempts to countermand the constitution, it is unlawful.
In our nation (just within Christianity alone) there are many religious traditions. Some denominations make all prayer to the prayer to "God the Father". Some refer to "Father, Son, And Holy Spirit". Many charismatic people put "in the name of Jesus every other sentence". Some denominations pray quietly, in a moment of silence, others aloud, in a corporate body - and doing so is their "free exercise of religion"
When the Navy attempted to regulate what forms of prayer could be performed in uniform, and what sections of scripture, it stepped outside of both the free exercise clause, and the freedom of speech clause, of the first amendment.
If you say "you can pray, as long as you pray only in ways we allow, and when you begin to ban certain portions of scripture (say, those relating to sexual morality) you are attempting to establish that some people's religion is unacceptable. There is not a way to rationally claim that this is not so.
This is what the navy (in 1998, under Clinton) has done.
When I took my enlistment oath the ultimate allegiance that document called upon me to uphold was to - The Constitution Of The United States. I am still keeping it.
In On War, Karl Von Clausewitze spends a lot of time on elements pertaining to the national will. Included in those sections is this:
"Although little can be said of these things in books, still they belong as much to the theory of war as everything else which constitutes war. For once more I must repeat that it is a miserable philosophy if, as was formerly done, we establish rules and principals which ignore all moral qualities, and then, as soon as these qualities appear, we begin to count the exceptions and after a fashion make them into rules; or if we resort to an appeal to genius which is above all rules, thus implying not only that rules were made for fools but that they must themselves be really folly."
So here we are. The navy has stepped out of the bounds from which it draws it's authority. At stake here is more than whether or not they can shut up this one, or even a few chaplains and religious personnel. Ultimately whether continued maintenance of discipline, moral, and dedication to serve our country is even achievable depends on following the rule of law. Even at the highest levels.
McCain's "Campaign Finance reform", The Kelo eminent domain decision, This issue, All these things undermine the moral authority of government. And when governments lose the authority to govern over the people then the nation falls. sometimes into chaos and anarchy, sometimes into dictatorship, but they always collapse.
You may disagree about the proper way to address this, But I will tell you a few things. this is not about wearing a uniform and campaigning for some cause. It is not about some derelict trying to get out of doing his job (in the name of Jesus!). It is not about some guy trying to grab time in the national spotlight to satisfy some grandiose narcissism. And it is not going away. Expect this to go to the supreme court. and if the Navy "wins", well it wins the kind of victory the citizens of New London won in the Kelo decision - and that's not a victory worth having.
It's not really you and GATOR NAVY I disagree with. It is the notion that the Military has the authority, under the Constitution, to regulate prayer and theology within it's ranks - and if you read all that has gone on this there is no HONEST way you can try to claim it is not about that.
I believe the Constitution is clear. There are quite a few, even on Free Republic, who think the Constitution doesn't matter.
Go back and read all that has been written on the original case, and decide where you stand. If you still stand by the navy on this issue, I ask you: is the fact that you retired therefrom a reason to do so, or is it an excuse to not trudge through the particulars of this admittedly long and contentious case before rendering an opinion?
Yeah, you're right. That's why I quoted the question. I thought the JCS was as bad as it could get during the Clinton administration (although Shelton had his defenders on here, but, except for Marines, I thought I'd never seen such a parody of bureaucracy and spinning), but this guy seems pretty bad to me.
There was no set-up of Klingenschmitt.
In fact, a flag officer (admiral) went out of his way to steer Klinger in the right direction by giving him a direct order not to wear that uniform at a media/political event in front of the White House.
The officer insisted on wearing his uniform to that event, being photographed, and making comments.
If he had gone to the event in his civilian clothes, had prayed in Jesus' name, preached a full sermon about the resurrection, taught a Sunday School lesson on the life of Jesus, and to top it off run a vacation Bible School, there would have been ZERO problem.
If it was not a media/political event, he could have done the same on base or off base IN UNIFORM at a chapel, in the woods, at a picnic area, in the theater, in a tree, at a training area, on the deck of a ship, etc., etc.
It's the uniform at a media/political event that's the issue. The admiral warned him and he disobeyed.
Who are you anyway?
All he has to say is "in the name of the Holy Son of God." Jesus isn't mentioned and the chaplain gets his point across and his prayers to the right place.
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.