Redstate

Even Gorbechev would say "God Help us" at times. Showing that an invocation to God, even by an atheist, can have its time and place. Any time a person is in our voluntary enlisted serveice our country should make it easier for them to worship as they see fit. Additionally, having chaplins as part of our standing forces can give succor and support to our troops. It is a shame that Salvage you do not see that in your, I presume, admirable attempt to not have offense taken by our muslim bretheren or our god hating left by having the loving and peace filled words of Jesus Christ spoken out loud.

-------
America is the world's last best hope.

that it's that simple. It's that easy, but not that simple. Chaplains of any faith are messengers of their faith. Simply saying your written orders supercede your God and the higher callings' message is anything BUT simple.

These guys are in the military to use their faith and connection with God to serve the men doing the fighting and dying. Suggesting they shelve their faith in deference to political correctness is absurd.

How bout we say this instead:
Those soldiers who are offended by hearing [fill in the blank] the name of Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha, should not go to a religious service...and leave the Chaplains to givinig the message they are designed by their faith to give. How's that?

Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.

religious counsel and services while deployed because their type of Chaplains are being court martialed or are deemed unfit for service?

We need to think these things through, we have chaplains, not because we want to give some pastor/priest/cleric a job, but because there are soldiers/sailors/marines of their respective faiths who desire and want religious counsel.

To my knowledge, no one has ever been forced to become a military chaplain. A minister/imam/rabi/preist becomes a chaplain by choosing to put on a uniform, and in doing so is (a) making a committment to the troops (ALL of the troops) with whom he serves, and (b) taking an oath to obey the legal orders of his chain of command (just like every other soldier). If he's not able to place either obligation before his need to evangelize his particular flavor of God, he should choose to stay in the "private" sector.

It's not out of the question to find out which religions are represented at an interfaith service and tailor the proceedings based on the response.

The US military has had chaplains in it's ranks since before Valley Forge; why has this suddenly become an issue?

There are two issues. First, obeying orders. Second, practicing religion. Where the two conflict, action must be taken.

Chaplains have a duty to obey orders. If they refuse to obey an order, they must be punished. This is the first issue.

The second issue that people keep not debating is whether or not the policy should remain.

Why shouldn't Chaplains be able to use the name of their God? If I was in the field and my battalion chaplain held a prayer, and in it referenced Allah, it would cause me no pain or discomfort. I wouldn't feel "excluded" or "outcast".

The question of whether chaplains should obey orders is not debatable, they should. But military policy is subject to change. Can we, as civilians, not debate the policy itself?

absentee

I think your analysis is right on. I can see where in some circumstances a chaplain might decide to disobey an order so that he might follow what he feel is God's commands.

If he finds himself in Daniel of the Old Testament’s position he should be just as willing to face his personal Lions as well.

As a matter of public policy, we should try to avoid establishing non-religion as the state sponsored religion. The USA should make it easier for the Daniels of the world not harder

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

Having recently been in a near-death situation with no priest available, I can attest to the fact that I wasn't at all offended by the blessing the Lutheran minister gave me; at that point I was willing to bring in whatever was available, including a guy with grass skirt and a bone through his nose, if they had one. I'm pretty sure that if I was facing incomming artillery, I'd want someone who could pray to EVERYONE's God.

However, I simply can't beleive that someone with the proper training can't conduct a service that doesn't specifically mention Jesus, Mohammed, Yaweh, Buddah, or the Bab. I'm Catholic with some Jewish in-laws, and I've seen prayers in those religions that are both powerful and non-specific. Heck, the Lords Prayer is one of them. Our visions of God may be different, but some concepts ARE universal, and a chaplain who can't speak to that shouldn't be serving.

I don't think anyone's going to mistake me for an appologist for Islam, but I don't see this as a matter of religious persecution. I suspect this whole issue is a matter of a few southern evangelicals upset that the policy forces them to treat other religions as equal to thier own, when what they really want to be doing is converting the heathens.

The Our Father is a non-specific prayer? The very title implies brotherhood with Christ as the basis for one's prayer. It's not as if one just becomes a son of God.

"Hallowed be thy name", among other things, asks for the pure teaching of God - which includes the conversion or silencing of all those heretics. I could go on with virtually every line.

If you think these kind of prayers are non-denominational, you're not really listening. In which case, why bother with what the chaplain does at all? If you just want someone to invoke the name of God before going into battle, you surely don't need a priest or minister to do it.

Religions are different, and you just can't make a one-size-fits-all spiritual resource. Seriously trying just means nobody serious is satisfied. Not a wise approach for a purely volunteer force.

As I have said, a speech/sermon/homily type situation, in a large group is one thing, but a prayer is different. I don't pray to some conglomerate God that is a god for everyone. I pray to the triune God.

I also think there is a fine line as to what constitutes evangelism. Is a chaplain, not in a religious service permitted to talk about his faith with others? He is permitted to ask about the faith of others? Are these two things evangelism, or ministry, or concern?

If a soldier asks a chaplain something, and the chaplain answers from their religious perspective, is it evangelism?

I have issues where we start to draw these types of lines, because a simple conversation may cross it, without any evil or purposeful intent on the party of the chaplain.

The only difference is that they have no RIGHT (and a fair number do anyway - it is essentially at the discretion of the commander and the chaplain) to invoke Jesus Christ's name during their benedictions and other functions in nonreligious ceremonies.

to the God you serve.

This is what I think is stupid about all of this.

But if you invite somebody to offer a prayer (which is what a benediction is) then be prepared for them to offer that prayer to the God they serve. If you aren't prepared for that, then just skip the benediction altogether.

Honestly I have been in situaitons where people of other faiths have offered up prayers, I simply sat quietly and offered up my own private prayer.

Now if you are talking about speeches I think there should be some room for restriction, but I think restricting the words of prayers is over the top.

are allowed to invoke God even though there are some atheists in uniform. Many are tacitly permitted to invoke Jesus Christ's name even though there are some Jews and Muslims in uniform. By leaving it to the discretion of commanders and chaplains themselves it strikes a balance between an absolute freedom to say anything religious, which in some situations would seem to be inappropriate in light of the distinctions between church and state and the rights of people to choose agnostic or atheistic lifestyles, and a prohibition on saying anything religious, which would seem similarly unacceptable. If you push the envelope on an institution like this it would seem you would be at least as likely to get the latter (at least in guidance from higher commanders to subordinates) as the former.

"Not being able to differentiate between right and wrong is a terrible affliction for a nation."

Er, are you honestly saying the military needs to declare evangelical Christianity right, and non-Christianity wrong?

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

"Either they will squash evangelicals, or they will cater to satanists."

Wow.....talk about making a mountain out of a molehill....

Last I read, the word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. I'll trust the founding fathers' opinion thanks.

Last I read, the word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. I'll trust the founding fathers' opinion thanks.

FYI

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names ...

The Founders were not the areligious men your teachers and professors told you about.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

Was practically boilerplate back then and it obviously wasn't intended as any spiritual invocation.

But let’s say for a second it was some sort of nod to religion, it’s pretty general, like the way the Chaplin is supposed to be. And what percentage of the whole document do those six words make up?

American was conceived as a county of freedom of religion. To ensure that freedom for everyone they took great pains to ensure no one religion would dominate and that is why government remains secular. To pick an official religion or even lean towards one would be detrimental to all other religions and ultimately freedom to and from.

Now let’s go another way, let’s say you have a priest who says it’s his calling to talk as many soldiers out of fighting as he can. Would you object to his being censured?

if you are going to spend this many words please try to say something meaningful.

The Founders were striving for a country where freedom of religion was the order of the day, not freedom from religion. The entire purpose of the establishment clause was to ensure that we did not a) move to a state religion (England and the Church thereof remember) and b) that the federal government did not step on existing arrangements in place in the several states, not all of which were arelgious. The intent of the clause has been, to say the least, somehwat distorted in the ensuing years.

Now let’s go another way, let’s say you have a priest who says it’s his calling to talk as many soldiers out of fighting as he can.

A Catholic priest would be out of bounds to do that as the concept of "just war" is well accepted by the Roman Church. Now I can imagine some other "religious" chaplains (that shall remain nameless) trying to do that ... but thats just me.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

Is no such thing.
"it’s pretty general, like the way the Chaplin is supposed to be..."
You might want to know what you're talking about.
The purpose of the Chaplain is to Primarily serve as a religious counselor for those currently serving who happen to be of his faith and for anyone of any other faith who can suck it up long nough to get help from him. He is an example of his faith and a Military Leader Of His Faith. Areligious my backside.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

certainly not. However, I think it is clear they believed in the separation of church and state. Over three months of debate was spent framing the Constitution of the United States, and the result was/is clearly a secular document. Their intention was clear.

That congress has had paid chaplains since 1789, and those chaplains have often invoked the name of God and Jesus.

Here is the text of a prayer said in 1861-note the mentions of God and Jesus:

1861 (July 4), Senate Prayer

The following prayer was offered by Rev. Byron Sunderland, D.D.
Almighty and everlasting God, be not angry with us for our sins, which we only confess and deplore; but pardon our offenses and extend to us Thy favor. We thank Thee for Thy goodness on this anniversary of the nation a day tenfold more precious by reason of our present troubles, and sacred to the heart for the ever memorable Declaration of our fathers, in which Thou didst begin more openly to give us a name among the nations of the earth. We thank Thee for all Thy manifold and abundant mercies hitherto to make our nation exceedingly great and glorious; but now disasters have befallen us and darkness broods in the land. And now we ask Thy mercy as the Senate is convening at a most momentous crisis of our history. Give to Thy servants all needed help. Add to their deliberations wisdom and unanimity, and profit and speed to their conclusion. Bless Thy servant, the President of the United States, our veteran Commander-in- Chief, and all that have functions in the civil and military power. May the angel of Thy presence walk in the Cabinet and in the Congress and in the camp, to go before, to purify, and to direct the now greatly and universally-awakened love of country. And we beseech Thee to guide us, to overrule and order all things, and so to cause that nothing shall fail, that the disorders of the land may be speedily healed, that peace and concord may prevail, that truth and righteousness may be established, and that Thy Church and Kingdom may flourish in a larger peace and prosperity, for Thy Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ's sake. Amen. (Source: Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, first session, new series, 1, 4 July 1861.)

in Congress, or on the battlefield, to my mind, don't bridge this nation's constitutional separation of church and state. If anything, they are an affirmation of our freedom to practice religion, a right guaranteed by our secular government.

I think it depends on the actual service whether something is inappropriate, but to be honest, when a chaplain or minister is offering up a prayer, I am not offended if such prayer invokes the name of the God they serve.

I would have more issue with sermons/speeches or homilies (whatever you call them in your faith) at a more non denominational type event, but if I was offering up a prayer, I would want to offer it to the God I serve. If the person offering the prayer wasn't of my faith, I would like pray silently to my own God.

I think what we are heading for is a situation where everyone is overly sensitive to offense, what is needed instead of bowing down to the "feelings" of everyone, is for everyone to grow a thicker skin.

You are still saying nothing that those you are debating haven't said.

As I read through this thread and the previous one, I keep seeing everyone drawing analogies the purpose of which are to illustrate the need for limits on religious practice in the military.

Of Course there are limits. What is at issue are the exact, existing limits, and whether or not they should be moved, and in what direction.

I don't think it's necessary for everyone to continue to post reductio arguments to illustrate the necessity of limits. That limits are necessary is conceded before the fact.

The practice of religion is necessarily limited in and by the military. It will always be so. That is settled debate.

absentee

Now that I have read your posts. You are pretty close to the mark.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

... although I've only got my own experiences to draw on. I'm a Southern Baptist but for most of my six years in the Marine Corps the chaplains that were available to me were Catholic. That may not sound like much of a difference to an outsider but believe me, to a Southern Baptist that's a pretty big difference.

I also believe strongly in the idea that orders must be obeyed, that when they are not obeyed there must be consequences, and that in cases where an order was disobeyed with good reason, the truth will out... after the fact. The courage to disobey in such situations should come with the fortitude to face the consequences.

Finally, I firmly believe that there should be limits on how religion may be practiced by chaplains in the military. However it seems reasonable at a site such as this to debate the relative merits of this or that specific policy.

absentee

For that policy is pure PC BS. Since we've agreed to debate the policy itself. Personally, I think that the way the military has been doing it for the last 20 or so years is just fine... But then, I have this hard, sideways, knee-jerk reaction to anything that smacks of PC...

As to the rest of it, I think we pretty much agree...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

He had a Catholic one, and a Lutheran one, and when they had the Lutheran one, they appointed a member of the crew who was Catholic as a sort of Lay minister (I never quite understood just what his duty specifically was-as in what he was permitted to do and not according to Catholic doctrine, but he did take some training classes that made him appropriate for that position).

Actually, my husband never really met too many evangelical type chaplains while in the Navy, I know there are some, but they didn't seem to be the most common.

And I don't know why.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Hard to believe he is still in uniform. Harder to believe they only slapped his wrist with such a minor charge. He was Blatantly disobeying Standing orders that cover the entirety of the military about wearing his uniform at political rallies and/or protests...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

"When Klingenschmitt conducts services for members of his own sect, he has every right to believe and to cite the scripture saying that God will send their brothers in arms of different faiths to eternal damnation if they keep their religion."

Take a close look at what you said. He's allowed to believe when he conducts services for members of his own sect? How very kind.

So when he conducts this other funeral service, is he required to believe something else? Or is he just supposed to lie through his teeth? Either course is wicked, as he would see it.

Isn't it far more reasonable to get someone else to perform this service? If a chaplain of an appropriate religion isn't available, get some officer to perform a purely secular memorial service. It may not be the ideal, but it sure beats spoiling what chaplains are available.

So when he conducts this other funeral service, is he required to believe something else? Or is he just supposed to lie through his teeth?

Lieutenant Klingenschmitt has a Constitutional right 24 hours a day to believe the dead soldier's comrades of different religions will all go to hell if they give their lives for their country, and that doesn't even disqualify him as a military chaplain. What does disqualify him as a military chaplain is his inability to refrain in a mixed-faith setting from telling American soldiers that they're going to hell for not sharing his religion.

He doesn't have to "lie through his teeth" by denying his belief that his fellow soldiers of the "wrong" religions are going to hell; all he has to do is not spout that belief in a setting where those "heathen" American soldiers are expected to be present.

Is that such a terrible burden on Lt. Klingenschmitt, to save his condemnations of other soldiers' religions for when they're not around?

Isn't it far more reasonable to get someone else to perform this service?

Of course sombody besides Klingenschmitt should take over. But taking part in such mixed faith ceremonies, such as the one in question where the dead sailor's shipmates of all religions (or even athiests) mourned his loss, is an integral part of a military chaplain's duties. Being a military chaplain is more than just collecting a military paycheck for being the parish priest on a military post. If Klingenschmitt's beliefs render him incapable of performing all his duties as a military chaplain (not just the ones he likes), he should find another line of work.

Nobody is entitled to a position in the military, they have to perform. Klingenschmitt's whole problem is his aggrandized sense of personal entitlement, believing his religious cause exempts him from standards that every other soldier is accountable for.

[quote]He doesn't have to "lie through his teeth" by denying his belief that his fellow soldiers of the "wrong" religions are going to hell; all he has to do is not spout that belief in a setting where those "heathen" American soldiers are expected to be present.[/quote]

It's easy enough to say, just don't mention these inconvenient beliefs. All right. But then what on earth is he supposed to say?

Can he offer any hope about this soldier entering another life? Obviously not.

Can he offer prayers on behalf of the dead soldier? Not sane ones without acknowledging what he's not supposed to mention, or without implying a hope he "knows" to be false.

Can he comfort those who mourn the fallen with the promises of God? Certainly there are plenty of passages that apply to believers. But not to non-believers, and he's not allowed to make a distinction. Such passages also -gasp- mention Christ, or are based on his deeds and promises. Better be silent.

In short, all that's left is either a bellyful of woe, or that completely secular service I already suggested. I grant it's all right to ask any chaplain to give a secular service. Just don't expect him to invoke God or pray. "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain."

[quote]If Klingenschmitt's beliefs render him incapable of performing all his duties as a military chaplain (not just the ones he likes), he should find another line of work.[/quote]

And all the other chaplains who believe as he does, right? Guess all the soldiers who believe as he does should leave too, or not enlist in the first place. Few believers want to spend years on duty without any kind of spiritual support. Sounds kind of counterproductive, don't you think?

I'm sure it'd be very convenient for the military to set up a state religion that's strictly PC at all times, to minimize interfaith conflicts. Pity that's unconstitutional.

But he has no right to a job that he is incompetent to perform.

>>But then what on earth is he supposed to say?

His problem. If he has nothing of value to say, he is in the wrong job. Clue: insulting the deceased at a funeral and causing offence to his comrades is not considered a great career move for a chaplain. Telling the congregation that the deceased and/or his comrades are going to burn in hell is offensive and has no place at a funeral service.

Chaplains are there to provide succour and comfort to soldiers. Disrupting funeral services - a sad but very important duty of military chaplains - by going out of your way to be offensive to your fellow servicemen is a firing offence.

>>And all the other chaplains who believe as he does, right?

No, just any other chaplains incapable of performing the job he was hired to do and incapable of obeying orders. Your absurd libel of evangelical soldiers - implying that none of them can obey orders - is simply fatuous.

>>Guess all the soldiers who believe as he does should leave too, or not enlist in the first place.

No. There are both interdemoninational and denominational service provided for them. They can attend both or neither at their discretion. They are more than welcome to serve, and many do.

>>I'm sure it'd be very convenient for the military to set up a state religion that's strictly PC at all times, to minimize interfaith conflicts.

I doubt in the military wants to waste time running a state religion. I doubt that any of them joined up for that purpose. So this excessively silly strawman can be dismissed as utterly valueless and irrelevant to the discussion.

Soldiers that disobey orders get cour martialled. Got a problem with that?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

shooting your own argument in the foot.

A person who believes that the "hope" in the after life is attached only to belief in Jesus Christ isn't going to have some platitude to make everyone happy. He also isn't going out of his way to offend, he is actually telling people where their hope lays, which is in a trust in Jesus Christ.

My husband is not a chaplain, but he is a minister, and when he conducts funeral services, he shares the gospel. When he conducts a wedding service, he shares the gospel (although in a very gentle and subtle way-as in there isn't any "you are going to Hell" type comments).

And I am not sure a memorial service is the place to do this, but counseling a friend who isn't a Christian, you are souding like you do expect him to lie.

>>And I am not sure a memorial service is the place to do this, but counseling a friend who isn't a Christian, you are souding like you do expect him to lie.

If someone goes to him for spiritual counsel he needs to provide it in accordance with his own beliefs. If they don't like what he says, they should have gone to someone else. There are other chaplains available.

At an interdenominational service he needs to say things appropriate to the event.

I don't know the man's beliefs in detail, but something along the lines of God loves people, shared hope for eternal life, etc., etc.. He doesn't, after all, know what was in the heart of the deceased, so he can't know where the deceased is going. What he can do is join and lead the mourners in hoping for eternal life.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

"I don't know the man's beliefs in detail"

If you don't know what he actually believes, how can you tell that the platitudes you find appropriate ("God loves people" "hope for eternal life") are consistent with what he believes and teaches?

That's what I meant by the military setting up some "interdenominational" religion, and commanding him to follow along. Won't work. It will, though, be very offensive to those who believe as he does. Whoops.

>>If you don't know what he actually believes, how can you tell that the platitudes you find appropriate ("God loves people" "hope for eternal life") are consistent with what he believes and teaches?

You are right, he may believe that God hates people and he may not want anyone to achieve eternal life. That's possible, I suppose. I was just suggesting examples. I am sure there is something he believes that does not involve insulting the sensibilities of everyone else in the world. But if he is part of some Fred Phelps style sect that believes God is more into hating than loving, and most especially hates everyone outside the chosen few dozen, then he is probably a poor choice as a military chaplain.

>>That's what I meant by the military setting up some "interdenominational" religion, and commanding him to follow along.

You are insulting the intelligence of everyone else here if you expect anyone to take this argument seriously. Nobody else believes the American military has invented its own religion, or has commanded anyone to believe in it. Well, I suppose Osama bin Laden might believe that, but I don't think he is a regular poster on Redstate.

All that is being asked of the man is that he should do his job. That involves conducting both denominational and interdenominiational services. If he is temperamentally unsuited to this task that is HIS failing it is not some general failing of evangelical Christians.

Equally, the martyr complex and the determination to disobey standing military orders are HIS problem, and not a general failing of evangelicals.

Why are you defending someone so manifestly incompetent at performing his job?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

"It's easy enough to say, just don't mention these inconvenient beliefs. All right. But then what on earth is he supposed to say?

Can he offer any hope about this soldier entering another life? Obviously not."

If he honestly can't do his proscribed duty as spelled out by military (Navy in this case) regs, then he should Start by telling the appropriate CO that he is incapable of performing this service and then take the next step of considering a change in careers. Nothing wrong in believing the way he does. Lots wrong with publicly telling fellow servicemembers that they and their deceaased comrade are all going to hell during said comrade's funeral.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

although I do think it is more than possible to conduct a memorial service without invoking scriptures that may offend other faiths, I also think in a case where a chaplain feels strongly that he can't, the sane option is for this guy to inform his commander and to have another chaplain, not so constrained fill in.

I honestly think this kind of stuff isn't a congressional mandate type thing, but something that is a command level thing, where the situation should be considered on the merits of that case.

A law may invoke some unintended consequences, where one group is either silenced to the point they don't feel comfortable in their position or ministering to the men they are there for, or they are given free reign to be as offensive as they want.

I guess I am not seeing the need for congressional involvement.

>> I guess I am not seeing the need for congressional involvement.

Exactly. This is a command decision. From what I have read, it sounds as though the man likes disobeying orders and lacks the ability and temperament for the job. But if that is so, it will come out at the court martial. If there is actually a great deal more to this, then that should come out too.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

the QM is already over and he was slapped on the wrist.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

If they so choose to defy the chain of command then they must be willing to accept the consequences. This LT, apparently, was not. The Daniel analogy does not apply.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

>>And shame, SHAME on the military for hindering God's work.

Sure, it would be, if that had happened or even been alleged. What happened here is that a guy was hired to do a job. Turned out he wasn't up to it.

He has every right to believe what he wants, and preach what he wants. He does not have a right to a military salary to subdise him in this task.

In this context, the military is just another employer. If you were paying this guy to sell bananas, and then you found out he wasn't selling any bananas he was using the time to spread his interpretation of God's word, you would fire him. In doing so, you would not be hindering God's work, you would simply be declining to pay someone for a job they weren't doing.

The job of a military chaplain is to support morale. That is why they are there, on a military salary. If this guy doesn't want to do that he should get another job.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

"The job of a military chaplain is to support morale. That is why they are there, on a military salary. If this guy doesn't want to do that he should get another job."

AGREED!

"He has every right to believe what he wants, and preach what he wants. He does not have a right to a military salary to subdise him in this task."

But that IS what you're paying him to do: to act as a priest/minister for the benefit of the soldiers that want such teaching. The military likes the advantages that come with this: higher recruitment and morale.

The problem is you ALSO want him to preach non-denominationally. Those two don't go together. Not just for this particular guy (who I admit could put things more delicately), but for a large portion of Christianity. "No one comes to the Father but by me (Christ)" is a Biblical verse.

Maybe the military should get a few more general morale officers. Let these morale officers take on whatever non-denominational functions are needed. (Are there really that many?) Let the chaplains keep the religious soldiers happy, to the extent chaplains of compatible religions can be made available.

The job has been defined above by posters with the military experience I lack. It seems to involve several strands: running denominational services for those who want them; running non-denominational services for a wider audience, still voluntary, but with wider appeal; giving one to one counsel to those who want it; obeying standing and specific orders, such as those that say you can't attend political meetings in uniform.

The focus in this case is on his inability to do 2 and 4 above.

Number 2 is especially important in the Navy. It is likely that aboard ship there will only be the one chaplain present. It requires tact and discretion. It is not a job for everyone.

If your estimate of a 'large portion of Christianity' was remotely correct, this would be a bigger problem than it is. Why is it that other chaplain's don't seem to have this problem.

>>"No one comes to the Father but by me (Christ)" is a Biblical verse.

It's a big book. There are others. You don't have to say everything you believe every time you speak. Unless you are setting out to offend. Note this particular guy, whom you concede lacks tact, did not get the court martial that (I believe) he was seeking for being bad at conducting funerals. He had to specifically disobey orders to do that, stepping well outside his job to do so.

I think the guy has a martyr complex. Having had a slap on the wrist this time, what will he do next to get himself kicked out of the Navy?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

[quote]If your estimate of a 'large portion of Christianity' was remotely correct, this would be a bigger problem than it is. Why is it that other chaplain's don't seem to have this problem.[/quote]

They don't to the extent of this particular guy. But see the original post for chaplains who insist on including Christ's name in their prayers.

You see, they actually believe this stuff about "No one comes to the Father but by me". That includes prayer. Even if they don't preach this text at a particular service, they operate by it.

Nothing prevents some non-denominational services within a religion. Despite considerable divisions within Christianity, it's possible to hold a service that avoids the differences. That's a reasonable request because there is at least some common ground, and it's better than nothing for those soldiers without their ideal chaplain.

But it's ridiculous to expect services to accomodate every religion and lack thereof, all at once. There's not enough common ground for a gerbil to stand on. If the military insists on the preaching of sweet nothings, I would suggest that both piety and religious knowledge are disadvantages in this task. Forget chaplains. Get atheists.

>>They don't to the extent of this particular guy

From what I have read the problem is down to one guy. Others seem to manage quite well.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

services during the week. They did specific Catholic services, then protestant services and possible some other specific services. They had lay people from the various faiths that were other than the chaplain do the services and counseling and other needs of the crew members in their specific faiths, although it was generally a Catholic/Protestant type break down, I don't think each protestant sect had a lay person appointed.

I also think this is why a "non denominational" expectation is in reality not very workable. Christian sects could do ecemunical and non denominational pretty easily, but when you start tossing in Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Pagan, and whatever else, it is asking somebody to act outside their own belief system, unless you think the only acceptable chaplains should come from the UU church, and frankly I don't think I would feel comfortable with a UU chaplain, if I needed specific counseling.

What they should probably do is pass on non denominational services altogether, and if they are doing a memorial service for a specific sailor, then the service should be led by a chaplain or lay crewmember from the faith that service member identified with, and if there happens to be somebody from a different faith there who gets offended, well maybe they should grow up.

Is that what you are arguing?

Does that mean that the evangelical type soldier doesn't get to have a chaplain that believes as they do?

See the chaplain is there to support morale, but they are also to provide religious services and counsel.

Being a chaplain isn't just the right of the guy who is appointed, but the right of the military member to have a religious service and counsel available to him/her, especially when deployed.

I am struggling here with your argument, because you seem to be arguing that a specific belief, and teaching that belief should be an automatic disqualifier.

The reality is that you aren't going to be able to have a consistant, keep everyone happy non denominational service for everything. YOu can do Christian oriented non denominational, but you can't do a "make everyone happy, and offend noone" service. Shoot I know pagan people who think Bush is being too Christian, when he says "God bless America" at the end of his speeches.

I won't speak for the person you replied to, but obviously a chaplain doesn't have to be a "UU type" to conduct himself like a adult among soldiers who don't all share his religion.

The problem is that those who have adopted a whining narcissist like Lt. Klingenschmitt as their cause celebre are trying, without holding any public hearings on the supposed problem, to slip in a rider to the Defense funding bill, to guarantee Klingenschmitt's "right" to lecture American soldiers of different faiths mourning a dead comrade, that if they happen to die for their country their reward will be an eternity in hell.

Nobody's denying Klingenschmitt and others the right to believe that, or the right to preach it in their sectarian services. But current military standards expect chaplains to adhere to adult standards of courtesy in gatherings where soldiers of differing faiths are present, and one minimal aspect of good manners is not telling the soldiers they're going to hell.

Klingensmitt type narcissists that Chairman Hunter's rider would protect, are like spoiled brats you can't take anywhere because they're likely to throw some tantrum in a public place. If their compulsion to tell "pagan" American soldiers that they're going to hell is too difficult for Klingenscmitt types to hold back in mixed faith ceremonies, they lack the ability to be a net asset in our mixed faith armed forces.

The Hunter rider to the Defense funding bill is not about religious freedom. It's more like an invitation to tie up our armed forces with "Americans with Disabilities Act" style litigation, with Klingenscmitt types suing that their theological version of Tourette syndrome means they can't help telling American soldiers that they're going to hell, so requiring adult standards of conduct in mixed faith gatherings would be illegal discrimination.

Why are the advocates for this change in the law trying to slip it into a spending bill, instead of having public hearings with sworn testimony and witnesses on both sides subject to questioning?

Does that mean that the evangelical type soldier doesn't get to have a chaplain that believes as they do? ... the right of the military member to have a religious service and counsel available to him/her, especially when deployed.

Actually service members very often do NOT have access to a chaplain of their particular faith, especially when deployed in a unit too small to have enough chaplains to match every sect. That's why a chaplain's military duty (yes duty, not optional) include ministering in non-sectarian gatherings. A chaplain owes a loyalty to all American soldiers, not just those of his own sect.

So yes, there will be some deployments where "the evangelical type soldier doesn't get to have a chaplain that believes as they do" just like soldiers of every other religion. And in trying times, for example after a platoon has lost some of their friends in a battle, the survivors of differing religions might draw comfort praying together with one of those non-sectarian prayers that some comments here heap such scorn on. And I suspect the "evangelical type soldier" you speak of wouldn't even mind if the chaplain leading the prayer doesn't believe his killed Jewish buddy is burning in hell now.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

but it would be a threadjack.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

n/t

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

Truth be told, conducting prayer services is really a pretty small part of a chaplain's job, and if he can't muster enough respect for people of other faiths to be able to do this (as US military chaplains have been routinely doing for more than 200 years), he's probably useless when it somes to counseling people with marital or other personal problems.

And I don't know that it is about "respect" and I think this all depends. But your argument essentially is that only the ecemunical types, and the ecemunical outside of Christianity types are fit to serve, which ignores the other bulk of the job, which is to reach out to and counsel soldiers, sailors and marines.

I think public speeches can and should have restrictions, but I do think prayer is a real exception. Sorry, but when I pray it isn't to Allah or a tree or whatever, it is to a triune god.

But if I was in the military, and needed Christian specific counseling, I want somebody whose doctrinal beliefs are at least going to be in the same ballpark as mine, not some wishy washy, everybody is the same and God makes no demands type advice.

I don't think as a matter of policy an entire Christian worldview should be excluded in the name of ecemunicalism. The reality is that there are ways to work around objections at the command level, which is where these types of disputes belong.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

all but this one have manners.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

in a mixed faith gathering for a dead comrade, that dying for their country will earn them a one-way ticket to hell.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

In his sermon at a memorial service for a departed soldier attended by his crewmates of all beliefs, Klingenschmitt told those who didn't share Klingenschmitt's beliefs they were going to hell. A couple of dozen attendees complained, and Klingenschmitt's commander told him to show better manners in the future.

Klingenschmitt's rebuke was for insulting other people's religions in a mixed faith gathering, NOT for saying the name of Jesus.

Klingenschmitt's court martial wasn't even about this incident. He was convicted of disobeying a direct order, admonishing him to comply with the regulation against wearing his uniform at a political protest.

I say detail, beause it is a small matter, but seems significant to me.

Did Klingenschmitt include the deceased among those he declared were going to Hell, or was it only the deceased comrades?

Because if he was the only chaplain aboard ship, he would presumably have to conduct funerals for deceased comrades who were themselves of a different religion or sect to his.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Or at least I hope so. I recall reading somewhere the deceased in this case was the same religion as him or close enough (though I don't find it in the reports I linked), so it was only the pagan mourners supposedly going to hell.

But now you do have me wondering - if he is the only chaplain on the ship, what he would do conducting a Jewish soldier's memorial.

The military hires chaplains who are hired because they are ministers. They should be allowed to minister the faith they hold and the name of Jesus should not be banned from being uttered in a prayer. Nor should allah, jehova, etc. That someone may show poor judgment should not drive the policy. Those that abuse the policy should be given other duties.

To prohibit anyone in America at anytime from uttering the name of Jesus is simply surreal. His name is not a curse word.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

>>To prohibit anyone in America at anytime from uttering the name of Jesus is simply surreal

That's not what happened. It is the deliberate insulting of mourners and the deliberate disobeying of orders that is the problem.

You are the one who is engaging in hypotheticals.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

If a person uses the word to insult, then punish him, don't ban the word for all.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

The court martial was over the completely different issue of attending a political meeting in uniform.

It seems to me that the guy has a martyr complex. He wanted to get court martialled for insulting people and didn't, so he could later claim he was discriminated against for mentioning Jesus. That ploy having failed he went to a political meeting in his uniform, and quite properly got court martialled for that.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

GC, will you grant that there is a difference between "disallowing a Chaplain from mentioning Jesus when leading a prayer as a part of his job" and "disallowing a Chaplain expressly to pray 'in Jesus' name' when leading a prayer as a part of his job?"
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

My main focus has been the law Warner refused to sign. I favor that law but I also favor military discipline and would, admittedly, under certain circumstances, not pray in Jesus's name myself depending on those present and the gravity of the occasion. What I object to is trying to write a law on the matter, for the law will invariably be over broad and ridiculous, given that we hire chplains of faith and we value faith in the performance of the military. I may well agree that this chaplain was wrong. I need to study it. This rooster ain't too stubborn!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

I haven't read the proposed law, so I'll grant that it might be too-sweepingly written. I've been biased against this particular chaplain for some time, though, because his grandstanding victimhood didn't make a good impression on me.

But if you study the Warner bill and stay against it, my guess is I'll be swayed.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

that went full time air force chaplain and moved to california where his superior prohibited him from much more than just prayer in jesus's name. Political correctness writ large. Bigotry against Evangelicals.

more later

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan