Court-martialed chaplain declares victory

A Navy chaplain court-martialed for wearing his uniform during a public event in which he prayed in Jesus' name is declaring victory after a congressional conference committee agreed on a compromise rescinding a Navy policy that barred "sectarian" prayers.

"This is a tremendous victory for religious liberty," said Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt in an interview with WND. "Chaplains are free again to pray in Jesus name."

The conferees, working out differences between House and Senate versions of the Defense Appropriation Act, are directing the secretary of the Navy to rescind a Feb. 21 directive titled "Religious Ministry within the Department of the Navy" and a similar Air Force policy enacted Feb. 9.

The Navy policy stated: "Religious elements for a command function, absent extraordinary circumstances, should be non-sectarian in nature."

A command function is an official Navy event outside the traditional chapel or worship-service setting. By punishing him, the chaplain contended, the Navy stretched its "command function" requirement to every public event at which a chaplain wears his or her uniform.

But the move by Congress yesterday, on a bill expected to pass, will provide the basis to overturn his court-martial conviction, Klingenschmitt believes.

As WND reported, a jury of U.S. Naval officers Sept. 14 recommended a reprimand and a $250 fine per month for a year for Klingenschmitt, who insisted an appearance in front of the White House in which he prayed "in Jesus' name" was a bona fide religious event and he had written permission from his commander to wear his uniform at such events.

But the military judge ruled wearing his uniform during "public worship" is allowed only inside a chapel on Sunday, basing his decision on the policy addressed by Congress.

Klingenschmitt said he hopes Rear Adm. F.R. Ruehe, commander of the Navy's Mid-Atlantic region, who convened his court martial, will "respect Congress enough to never sign my letter of reprimand."

"If this does cost me my career, I don't mind," he said, however, "because other chaplains will now have the freedom that I was denied."

The Navy chaplain, who went without food for 18 days to protest the service's prayer policy, submitted a whistleblower complaint to Sen. Hillary Clinton and other lawmakers in June, charging top naval officials with violating the Constitution by affirming the actions of officers who, he said, barred him from praying in Jesus' name and quoting certain Bible passages during an optional worship service.

The complaint to Congress came after Ruehe and a top Navy lawyer capped an 18-month investigation by ruling the chaplain's superior officer, Capt. James R. Carr, had grounds for punishing him.

Military Judge Anita K. Baker, designated by Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter, endorsed the decision by Ruehe to dismiss Klingenschmitt's original complaint as being "without merit."

The subsequent court-martial centered on Klingenschmitt's participation in a March 30 event with former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in front of the White House.

Klingenschmitt, a minister in the Evangelical Episcopal Church – which split from the liberal mainline denomination in the 1990s – insisted he was being punished by his superiors for praying in Jesus' name, in uniform, at the event.

Based on Ruehe's June ruling, he said the complaint against him also included preaching the gospel at an optional service – a memorial for a sailor.

Klingenschmitt believes the March 30 event qualified as one appropriate for wearing his uniform since the Navy Uniform Regulation "permits a member of the naval service to wear his or her uniform, without obtaining authorization in advance, incident to attending or participating in a bona fide religious service or observance."

In April, Capt. Lloyd Pyle presented the charge to Klingenschmitt. The chaplain had a choice of accepting a letter of reprimand or insisting on his rights to a court-martial. He chose the latter.

Pyle's letter said Klingenschmitt violated the Navy policy by "wrongfully wearing his uniform while attending and participating in a news conference in support of personal views on political and religious issues."

The event was meant to protest against the Navy policy requiring non-sectarian prayers in all but chapel settings.

As WorldNetDaily reported, in January Klingenschmitt received a letter from his commanding officer recommending he not wear his uniform at an earlier White House event, but not prohibiting it.

"If, despite my recommendation, you choose to participate in this (White House) event in uniform, you should limit your participation, while in uniform, to the 'bona fide religious service or observance,'" stated the letter.

In January, then, the chaplain broke his 18-day hunger strike by praying at the White House in uniform, for which he received no discipline.

"They gave me prior, written permission to wear my uniform, so long as I only said prayers," Klingenschmitt explained. "And that's all I did."

Klingenschmitt took the Oath of Office (Navy):

I,..... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

By taking this oath, he agreed to do two things (relevant to this discussion): (1) he took the oath FREELY without mental reservation and (2) will faithfully discharge the DUTIES of the office for which he was applying. And, incidentally, he did so ("SO HELP ME GOD").

I've been a Protestant Lay leader, under two ship squadron Chaplains. The nature of the Chaplain job is to administer to the needs of the crew. He counsels individually, according to their particular need and faith. And, he ministers to each denominational group individually, as they need worship services. Under all other circumstances, he is little more than a psychologist - giving advice and rendering public (multi-sectarian) assistance. He is not given a platform on which to evangelize for his personally held faith.

The nature of a burial-at-sea is that all personnel not standing a watch (which would prevent them from attending) will appear in the prescribed uniform for a dignified funeral. By the multi-sectarian nature of this setting, he is restrained from emphasizing his own brand of faith. His Commanding Officer witnessed and later documented (through a less than perfect Fitness Evaluation of this officer) that Klingenschmitt had ignored guidance issued by the CHAPLAIN CORPS (an organization of Naval clergy of which Klingenschmitt was a member) regarding this kind of setting. Klingenschmitt took exception to this ranking among his peers, and protested publicly.

The Navy uniform, when worn by the individual, makes a statement to the public that this individual is a representative of the Navy. ANY COMMUNICATION from this individual is required to be cleared with the Navy before it is made to the public (security and Privacy Act of 1974 issues among the reasons). He wore the Navy uniform with the understanding that this rule applied. Since the issue was regarding him personally, he would have been better served if he had worn civilian attire and not identified himself as a military officer. His personal opinions can be expressed as long as he adheres to this requirement. But, he failed to obey this order. Subsequently, he was charged with disobeying a lawful order, and Court Marshalled. The verdict handed down by the Courts Marshal imposed a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). With such a letter in his service record, his chances for promotion are much lower than the average officer in his competitive group. And, as many can attest, is usually viewed as a career-ending action. He seemed to be upset that this LOR would deny him a pension. My question to him is: What did you expect? If you blatantly disregard the rules of the organization to which you belong, something is going to happen!

Let's put it in another context. Let's assume that you are a parent who views homosexuality as an undesirable life-style. Your children attend a school where a gay instructor is teaching a sociology course. You would reasonably expect that the instructor will teach his curriculum in such a way as to avoid emphasis on any one life-style over any other (a balanced view). Now, say that this instructor used his position of authority as a soapbox for hawking his personal beliefs about the gay agenda. As a parent, would you agree that with a captive audience (which includes children from both conservative and liberal viewpoints) that he should be doing this, in violation of Schoolboard instructions?

In my view, the school teacher can voice his PERSONAL opinion in a public setting, but only when the audience has a choice to either attend or leave.

The ship's crew had no such option during the burial-at-sea. I believe Klingenschmitte received the punishment appropriate to his actions, having violated two sections of the Oath of Office by which he's agreed to abide.

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.