Court-martialed chaplain declares victory

WND ^ | September 30, 2006

[streetpreacher]

I believe that it's an unlawful order to make a U.S. officer and minister of Christ violate his conscience by publicly denying our Lord.

[streetpreacher]

Would you be equally happy if he'd been a Muslim quoting from the Quran and calling for the death of infidels while wearing his uniform?

I absolutely see the equivalence between the two scenarios...

[PzLdr]

All he had to do was wear civvies. He chose not to. He also chose to take the oath of a commissioned officer. He chose to disregard THAT oath. When you're in the service, you obey lawful orders.

Personally, I think they should release him from duty. Then he can do what he wants, with any parish that wants him. If he wants to do it in a uniform, let him refound the Templars.

[FrigateSkimmer]

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.