Navy dismisses chaplain who prayed 'in Jesus' name'

A U.S. Navy chaplain who prayed "in Jesus' name" as his conscience dictated is being ejected from the military service "in retaliation" for his victorious battle to change Navy policy that required religious rites be "non-sectarian."

"This fight cost me everything. My career is over, my family is now homeless, we've lost a million dollar pension, but Congress agreed with me and rescinded the Navy policy, so chaplains are free again to pray in Jesus' name," Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt told WND. "My sacrifice purchased their freedom. My conscience is clear, the fight was worth it, and I'd do it all again."

Klingenschmitt, as WND has reported, has fought an extended battle with the Navy over its restrictions on religious expression by its chaplains. He appeared and delivered a public prayer "in Jesus' name" at a White House rally last winter and was court-martialed for that. The Navy convicted him of failing to follow a lawful order because his superior didn't want him praying "in Jesus' name."

He's also launched a legal battle that he said he hopes eventually will result in his reinstatement, alleging the Navy assembled a "civic religion" by ordering its chaplains to pray in a certain way.




"There's a Unitarian system of religion that's aimed at Christians," John Whitehead, founder of the The Rutherford Institute, told WND. "It boils down to that. We're seeing it all across the country, with council prayers, kids wanting to mention Jesus. What's going on here is it's generally a move in our government and military to set up a civic religion."

"I think the Supreme Court's going to have to look at the idea of can the government in any of its forms tell people how to pray, set up a basic religion and say you can only do it this way," he said.

Klingenschmitt told WND he'd been delivered a formal letter of reprimand for his appearance at a White House function in March 2006 at which he wore his uniform and prayed "in Jesus' name." For that he was convicted at a special court-martial of violating a lawful order from his commanding officer not to do that.

His appearance was with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice and WND columnist Judge Roy Moore, who was removed from his office when he refused to follow a federal court order he considered unlawful: to remove a Ten Commandments monument from public property.

Klingenschmitt's $3,000 fine was suspended and because of the issues, Congress got involved and ordered the Navy to rescind that particular policy, and allow chaplains to pray as their "conscience dictates."

In a Congressional report on the situation, members of a conference committee noted, "The House bill contained a provision … to prescribe that military chaplains shall have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of their conscience, except as must be limited by military necessity, with any such limitation being imposed in the least restrictive manner feasible." That position was adopted with orders that the "Secretary of the Navy rescind Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1730.7C dated February 21, 2006, titled 'Religious Ministry within the Department of the Navy'" and replace it with a policy allowing such freedoms.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also then promised Congress that no chaplain would be punished under the now-cancelled policy, but the Navy's plans to get rid of Klingenschmitt moved forward anyway.

A federal judge in Klingenschmitt's lawsuit also concluded that his termination from the service and the damage that would result would not be "irreparable," so he would not step in at this point, and Klingenschmitt was delivered a Navy letter this week ordering him to move out of his home in conjunction with his removal from the service.

"Access onto all military installations within Navy Region Mid-Atlantic for Lieutenant Gordon J. Klingenschmitt, CHC, USNR, will terminate on January 31, 2007," said the letter from S.W. Wong, who is with the Judge Advocate General's Corp.

While he's battling for reinstatement, Klingenschmitt said, he'll be accepting speaking invitations and can be contacted through his website, and working with supporters Alan Keyes and Rick Scarborough who have assembled an online petition that calls on new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to honor Rumsfeld's promise that no chaplain would be punished under the old policy.

"U.S. Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt is being unjustly punished for praying in Jesus' name, for quoting Scripture passages in a military chapel, for voicing evangelical messages about Christ while in uniform," the petition says.

"Chaplain Klingenschmitt courageously stood for what is right, and his stand was completely vindicated by Congress. I am calling on you to immediately exonerate him and allow him to continue his outstanding service as a Navy chaplain. Mr. Secretary, you must act! And fast! Otherwise Chaplain Klingenschmitt will be kicked out of the service by Jan. 31, ending an award-winning 15.5-year career. He will lose his pension, health care benefits and be evicted from military housing – and our sailors will lose this faithful vicar of Christ."

"I think the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, should keep the promise of his predecessor," the chaplain told WND. "We are homeless, jobless and we are in God's hands."

"My separation is in direct retaliation for my victory on Capitol Hill. This is how the Navy treats whistleblowers," he added.

In the lawsuit filed by the Rutherford Institute, the authors noted that courts in the District of Columbia already have concluded: "What we have here is the government's attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains' free exercise and free speech rights, as well as those of their congregants."

The case developed when "one Navy Captain decided that he did not like the content of the Chaplain's religious speech during an optionally attended sermon in the chapel," the lawsuit said. Then a Navy investigation showed Klingenschmitt had prayed "in Jesus' name" and had even prayed in public in uniform. For that, the court-martial was held, "ignoring Naval Uniform Regulations that permit chaplains to wear the uniform during public worship."

The lawsuit notes that the Navy is using the chaplain's resignation from one "ecclesiastical endorsement" and acceptance of another from a different church group as its reason for terminating him. However, the lawsuit notes that the Navy's own regulations state that a chaplain "shall" be recertified on request.

In apparent conflict, a letter from J.C. Harvey Jr., a vice-admiral, ordering Klingenschmitt's removal from the Navy, opined that "presentation of a new ecclesiastical endorsement from a qualified Religious Organization does not automatically mandate recertification."

The district court judge also found, in ruling against the chaplain, that in the military "public worship" is different from "worshipping in public," so that the Navy's punishment could move forward.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

weird...

there are christian, catholic, muslim chaplains. whats the big deal.

What they did to that chaplain is not right.

"This fight cost me everything. My career is over, my family is now homeless, we've lost a million dollar pension, but Congress agreed with me and rescinded the Navy policy, so chaplains are free again to pray in Jesus' name," Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt told WND. "My sacrifice purchased their freedom. My conscience is clear, the fight was worth it, and I'd do it all again."

now there is something you dont hear about everyday .

....That's just retarded.

Quoted: "This fight cost me everything. My career is over, my family is now homeless, we've lost a million dollar pension, but Congress agreed with me and rescinded the Navy policy, so chaplains are free again to pray in Jesus' name," Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt told WND. "My sacrifice purchased their freedom. My conscience is clear, the fight was worth it, and I'd do it all again." now there is something you dont hear about everyday .

Its attitudes like that is what made the USA what it once was.

Quoted: Quoted: "This fight cost me everything. My career is over, my family is now homeless, we've lost a million dollar pension, but Congress agreed with me and rescinded the Navy policy, so chaplains are free again to pray in Jesus' name," Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt told WND. "My sacrifice purchased their freedom. My conscience is clear, the fight was worth it, and I'd do it all again." now there is something you dont hear about everyday . Its attitudes like that is what made the USA what it once was.

+100000

Does anyone have any idea whether or not he will succeed in being reinstated?

Yet the .gov and military falls all over itself to kiss ROP ass.

God bless him in all he does.

He was told not to pray in Jesus' name.  I wonder if they tell Muslim Chaplains not to mention mohammed in their prayers?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just a little reminder of what the 1st says.

Somebody give that guy a $1 million, and say "Well done".

Yes, we as a nation, are truly f*%ked.

Semper Fi

I would like to send him some $$
How could I get in contact with him?

Quoted: Just a little reminder of what the 1st says.

As if the courts give a darn what the 1st says....

From experience there is almost always more to the story.  If he disobeyed a lawful order, then he needs to be separated.  Besides, God measures what is in our hearts as much as what is on our lips.  If you are in a situation in which Jesus's name is not invoked in a prayer, you can add it silently yourself.  Sincere prayers to God are always heard.

I'm surprised they haven't abolished the position of chaplain completely.  The government has been on a pretty big anti-religion kick over the past several years.

Quoted: Somebody give that guy a $1 million, and say "Well done". Yes, we as a nation, are truly f*%ked. Semper Fi

+1

on both statements!

Unfortunately, anti-americans are using our own laws & arguements to tear down what America once was and insitute their own ideas of what we should be.
Does that make sense?

Hessian-1

Quoted: Now chaplains can do as they wish, so be ready for military chaplains to rattling off the Hail Mary (evangelicals love that one) or praying to Allah.

I am an evangelical, a member of that much feared and maligned "religious right".

I don't have a problem with a Catholic chaplain being Catholic in public, or a muslim chaplain being muslim in public.

I have a real problem with the .gov telling them not to be Catholic or Muslim in public.

God Bless that Chaplain.  Geez, don't Chaplains have as their emblem a cross?  Are we to ban it and replace it with a sun or something?  Should we worship Apollo if we adopt the sun as the emblem of life or of a greater diety?  Perhaps we should commercialize Gawd and let some corporation pay for Navy Chaplains to wear their logo on their collars?  How about the Golden Arches of MacDonald's?  The Cunnel of KFC or Microsoft or Apple (I-Chaplain?).

That is just retarded.  I mean, chaplains have a cross as their branch insignia.  Which is a Christian symbol.  Praying in Jesus' name is a no brainer.  Like someone else said, I doubt they would forbid a Muslim chaplain to mention Mohammed (cursed be his name).  

Quoted: Personally I think generic "praise whatever giant guy might or might not be in the sky" stuff is kind of dumb,

So would I.

I don't pray to a "giant guy might or might not be in the sky".  And it is unlike you to be insulting to Christians, even if you disagree with us.

... but this guy's desire to push the views of his particular sect opened up a pandora's box for the military. Worked okay for everyone but this guy for what, 60+ years?

For the history of Army Chaplains, they have been praying in Jesus' name as they saw fit.  It never was a problem before.

There's no reason it ought to be a problem now.

He's a Chaplain that is a Christian.  You know, "Christian".  Meaning "follower of Jesus".

Who else would you expect him to pray to?

Quoted: Worked okay for everyone but this guy for what, 60+ years?

It would NOT have been OK with the founders, and that is the point.

Technically, he was dismissed for deliberately disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.  That is how the military should work.

Quoted: Technically, he was dismissed for deliberately disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.  That is how the military should work.

....Not if the superior officer gave him an illegitimate order.

Quoted: Technically, he was dismissed for deliberately disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.  That is how the military should work.

Is that right?

So, if a German Officer told a Private to kill Jews in WWII, they were supposed to obey that order, because "That is how the military should work."?

Or perhaps, an illegal order should not be obeyed.

Seems like I heard that somewhere.

And ordering a Christian Chaplain not to pray in Jesus' name is an illegal order.

Quoted: Quoted: Technically, he was dismissed for deliberately disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.  That is how the military should work. ....Not if the superior officer gave him an illegitimate order.

Absolutely,but my understanding is that the order was consistent with existing rules and policies, and the chaplain was aware of such rules and policies.

That is very different than disobeying an order to shoot unarmed women or children, or an illegitimate order of that type.


I don't disagree with the strength of his beliefs, but if his personal beliefs are at odds with rules and policies, and he is unable to function within those rules, then he CHOSE to be dismissed.

Quoted: And ordering a Christian Chaplain not to pray in Jesus' name is an illegal order.

Somehow I cannot picture Washington telling a chaplain not to mention Jesus in a prayer either as a General or as CIC.

Quoted: Quoted: Technically, he was dismissed for deliberately disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.  That is how the military should work. Is that right? So, if a German Officer told a Private to kill Jews in WWII, they were supposed to obey that order, because "That is how the military should work."? Or perhaps, an illegal order should not be obeyed. Seems like I heard that somewhere. And ordering a Christian Chaplain not to pray in Jesus' name is an illegal order.

That's incorrect.

You believe it is inappropriate.  I believe it is inappropriate.  But it is not an "illegal" order like an order to shoot unaramed civilians, because it doesn't violate military rules and policies.


That fact that you do not agree with an order in the military, or that it is repugnant to your personal belief system does NOT make something an illegal or immoral order by itself.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Technically, he was dismissed for deliberately disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.  That is how the military should work. Is that right? So, if a German Officer told a Private to kill Jews in WWII, they were supposed to obey that order, because "That is how the military should work."? Or perhaps, an illegal order should not be obeyed. Seems like I heard that somewhere. And ordering a Christian Chaplain not to pray in Jesus' name is an illegal order. You're equating murdering innocent non combatants with being told to keep public prayers nondenominational? Come on

No, I didn't say they were "equal" in any sense.

I was just giving an example of an illegal order, to counter my friend DK_Prof's contention that orders "must be obeyed".

The military has been doing that for decades, no one else "went on a hunger strike" went on the 700 club, appeared publicly with that judge who got kicked off the bench in Alabama. All those other ministers were following an "illegal order" and ignoring their religious conscience, or this one guy is a prima donna who put his desire to push his particular brand of christianity ahead of the his duties to the Navy? I'll bet on the odd man out being the fuck up.

When I was in the Army, the Chaplians prayed in Jesus name.  Why wouldn't they?  They were Christian Ministers.

If an officer instructs a Chaplian on what words he may and may say as he prays, that is an illegal order.  The Chaplain is a Christian Minister and no one has the right to tell him how to pray or worship his God as he sees fit.

Quoted: Quoted: Worked okay for everyone but this guy for what, 60+ years? It would NOT have been OK with the founders, and that is the point.

The Founding Fathers based everything on a Christian government, ruled at the very heart by the Ten Commandments.  Score one for Jesus, but since He rules the universe, He will win anyway.

That is just sick.  

HH

So... Let me get this right...  The US Navy is kicking out Christian Chaplins who pray in the name of Jesus Christ?!?!  

I'm so damn sick of Political Correctness.  

Quoted: The Founding Fathers based everything on a Christian government, ruled at the very heart by the Ten Commandments.  Score one for Jesus, but since He rules the universe, He will win anyway.

People can argue that the nation wasn't founded on Christian principles.

What cannot be argued is that the recognition of a particular brand of religious faith, even by government employees and officials, is somehow a violation of the establishment clause:



That the utterance of a prayer in the name of Christ could violate the orders of a superior officer and thus be grounds for court martial would come as a real shock to the people who founded the nation in the first place.

So the point of having chaplains at all is?  If this is the case, then how can Catholic chaplains perform last rights, or Muslim chaplains say Allah Akbar during payer (a requirement)?

Quoted: When I was in the Army, the Chaplians prayed in Jesus name.  Why wouldn't they?  They were Christian Ministers. If an officer instructs a Chaplian on what words he may and may say as he prays, that is an illegal order.  The Chaplain is a Christian Minister and no one has the right to tell him how to pray or worship his God as he sees fit.

Are you talking about what a chaplain said at Christian services, or what they said in a public setting, addressed to soldiers that may not have been Christians?

I don't think ANYONE is suggesting that any officer should be able to tell any chaplain what they can or cannot say at their services, or to members of their faith.  The issue is about what chaplain can say when they are speaking at public events, to a broader audience that includes people who are not of their specific faith.


It was much easier back in Denmark when I was in the military.  Since the country was something like 95% Church of Denmark (with an occasional rare catholic or jew thrown in), the military just assumed that you were a Lutheran.  Everyone was basically FORCED to go to services, whether they wanted to or not - and everyone was issued a bible (at least a condensed "field testament").  I had no problem with that.  

But I can see where it becomes a much more complicated issue in a much more religiously diverse nation like the United States.

Quoted: So the point of having chaplains at all is?  If this is the case, then how can Catholic chaplains perform last rights, or Muslim chaplains say Allah Akbar during payer (a requirement)?

From what I gather of this story, the chaplain in question here was supposed to offer a prayer at some sort of public event.

In private services and private ministry chaplains were allowed by the military to do as they saw fit, but there was a restriction in place about what is said in public. Thus a Catholic chaplain could have performed last rights in private or on the battlefield (as they have done for a very long time) but at a public function could not have said "Hail Mary, full of grace..."

The essence of your question, however, is valid: What's the point of having a position of Christian minister if you are going to tell them not to be one under X circumstance? If their statements of faith are really that objectionable in public, why bother at all?

...And the answer would be an easy "Just get rid of them! Church and state are supposed to be seperate!" except that the military has had chaplains since BEFORE there was a US Constitution. Congress went to great pains to provide chaplains both for ministering to the spiritual needs of soldiers, and also to act as moral guides for soldiers from the earliest days of the Republic.

And I can assure you that those chaplains the Continental Congress went to such great lengths to hire weren't prohibited from mentioning the name of Christ in a public prayer...

That in and of itself is an indication of just how out of touch we are with the founding of our nation. This site is dedicated to owning firearms, something lying liberal idiots have spent their time telling us the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with, and yet the very same liberal idiots tell us that the 1st is an impenetrable wedge to prohibit religious expression in public and plenty of people even here who ought to know better believe it.

I am at a loss to understand why.

Quoted: The issue is about what chaplain can say when they are speaking at public events, to a broader audience that includes people who are not of their specific faith.

And this is the crux of the matter.

The Founders were completely unconcerned about that question. No man could be forced to pray, but neither could that man's objections be used to silence another man's religious expression.

Quoted: So if the founding fathers intended this to be a "christian" nation didn't they mean the sect of christianity that they practiced?

I never said they founded the nation to be a "christian" nation....and among the Founders one could find a wide range of different Christian denominations and doctrines (many of which were incompatible with one another theologically) represented.

What they crafted was a system that allowed everyone to retain their rights to conscience because no one could be forced to worship....but neither could the objections of one man stop the worship of another. Nobody was forced to be a Christian...but general Christian virtue WAS encouraged, and Christian prayers were even enshrined as public proclamations like the one pictured in my previous post.

Did any of them belong to the church this minister belongs to? Did it even exist at that time?

How is that even relevant?

Quoted: Quoted: The issue is about what chaplain can say when they are speaking at public events, to a broader audience that includes people who are not of their specific faith. And this is the crux of the matter. The Founders were completely unconcerned about that question. No man could be forced to pray, but neither could that man's objections be used to silence another man's religious expression.

Bingo.

According to the article another officer got his shorts in a wad at what the chaplain had said during the service and wanted an investigation started. Similar to situations when one parent at a school complains that little throckmorton was "forced to hear a prayer ", got offended, or heard some other religious reference. School district gets sued by the ACLU, school district backs down, now no one can pray etc etc.....

It's been said, but I'll post the applicable part again for all those who just don't get it:

"The Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."

Quoted: I see constant arguments that the founding fathers intended this to be some kind of christian nation, but if they did they certainly saw it being based on the christian churches that they belonged to.

Your premise is incorrect. There were a ton of Christians in the founding days of our nation...but they were hardly in agreement with one another. There were all sorts of denominations and theologies represented in the US, which is one of the reasons that the 1st amendment says what it does. Thus the idea that they intended religious protection only for the religion they agreed with is an impossible argument to make...While people today tend to view Christianity as a monolithic entity, it isn't, and it CERTAINLY wasn't in the days of the founders.

There were some basic principles that Christians and non-Christians could agree on, and that is what we see enshrined in the Constitution.

How is someone espousing some beliefs that did not exist until about 50 years ago

If the man is a Christian his beliefs trace back well before the Constitution.

entitled to some unique protection because of his christian beliefs?

Ah! There we have another supposition...."unique protection." The protection I am talking about is not unique to this fellow...it is a basic protection that was crafted initially to protect the worship of different Christian denomination *and* to protect the rights of non-Christians...and the same protection applies today. The schisms in Christianity are a large part of the reason why we have a 1st amendment, but the protections are not solely for the Christians around when the Founders were writing. The right to worship as one sees fit was considered fundamental, which is why Jefferson said:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Would Washington have had any more in common with this chaplain than he would with a mormon?

If you refer to theological belief, I don't know because I don't know what this chaplain's personal theology is.

I *do* know that Washington was a practicing Christian who managed to get along with and even earn the respect of Christians and non-Christians alike. Given how much he risked for the founding of the nation and given how important his faith was to him, I can see him vigorously defending a chaplain's prayer.

The founders would be as outraged by modern America's treatment of the 1st amendment as they would be by our treatment of the 2nd and 10th amendments. If a Muslim chaplain wants to offer a Muslim prayer at a public function, so be it. I don't have to like it, but I sure as hell have no right to stop it....not even if I was his superior officer and was worried about a PR fallout.

Quoted: Absolutely,but my understanding is that the order was consistent with existing rules and policies, and the chaplain was aware of such rules and policies.

...And such rules and policies were, flatly, wrong. Wrong enough that even our Congress managed to pull its act together long enough to change said rules and regs.

He may have disobeyed a direct order...but the order was wrong to begin with. There should be some acknowledgment of that by the .mil. Dismissing him on the basis of this is unjust. No, you can't have complete and total disregard for the chain of command in the .mil. Here, however, I do not see an attempt to undermine the principle of authority in the military. I see a person rightly saying that there are legitimate limits to that authority.

No, A Muslim chaplain would NOT be allowed to mention Mohammed in a public, non-denominational prayer.  Enjoy feeling righteously indignant, though.  Then we can scream about how kids aren't allowed to take buses to school unless they can't speak English, and how the President wants a committed suicide bomber to represent the US at the UN.  We can all be knee-jerk wordnetdaily dumbasses together.

No, the name "Jesus" was not tossed about half as much as by this Chaplain in question.  The founders (despite the objections of a minority) took great pains to limits such references to the more universally acceptable "God."

The above proclamation mentioned His name, but if that's the best example you can find, it underscores the point.  "God" is what is written in bold letters, focusing the eyes in closing the document - NOT "Jesus."

If the document had said "Jesus save the World." you might have a point.

Catholic Chaplains have long been forbidden to make the sign of the cross in public gatherings.  The Hail Mary mentioned already is a no brainer.  I know of at least one who is very much against that policy - but he is a professional, and he not only follows it, but will enforces it among his subordinates, should he ever have a Catholic priest assigned under him (doubtful).

I challenge any of you to show any official government document from the founding period that was done "In Jesus's Name."

This Chaplain was way out of line, and refused to meet his basic obligation as a Chaplain - to provide for the religious accomodations of ALL Sailors in his command.  If he couldn't handle that, he should have stayed on the Georgia tent revival circuit and stayed out of the Navy.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Technically, he was dismissed for deliberately disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.  That is how the military should work. ....Not if the superior officer gave him an illegitimate order. Absolutely,but my understanding is that the order was consistent with existing rules and policies, and the chaplain was aware of such rules and policies. That is very different than disobeying an order to shoot unarmed women or children, or an illegitimate order of that type. I don't disagree with the strength of his beliefs, but if his personal beliefs are at odds with rules and policies, and he is unable to function within those rules, then he CHOSE to be dismissed.

Sir, just to add my two cents on this subject:  IIRC the standing order that the Chaplain intentionally disobeyed had to do with the proscription of his wearing his uniform while praying in a public setting.  He did nothing in violation of any standing orders until he chose to wear his uniform while doing it.

The same situation has been going on here locally with a sailor protesting the Iraq war and organizing other members of the local military who agree with him.  He's free to do so all he wants as long as he doesn't appear publically with his uniform on while doing it.  HTH, 7zero1.