Chaplain ’starves himself’ over Navy no-Jesus prayer policy
Posted on January 3, 2006
Via WND
The chaplain who has gone without food for two weeks in protest of the Navy’s policy against praying in Jesus’ name says Americans are giving the White House switchboard a workout each time he appears in the media, as supporters urge President Bush to sign an executive order allowing military clergy to pray according to their own faith traditions.
Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt says he will not eat until the president takes action to allow him and other chaplains the freedom to pray and preach without diluting God to a one-size-fits all deity.
Klingenschmitt participated in a protest outside the White House two weeks ago, asking Bush to intervene. That was the same day he began his hunger strike.
Klingenschmitt, an Air Force Academy graduate who transferred to the Navy three years ago to be a chaplain, says since his case made national news the Navy has renewed his contract, but still says he cannot pray in Jesus’ name in public while in uniform. While the chaplain says he welcomes the contract extension, he will continue his fast until he is allowed to wear his official uniform – which, he points out, bears a cross – while praying a Christian prayer in public.
“If I pray in Jesus’ name in public, I have to wear civilian clothes,” Klingenschmitt told WND in explaining the contract’s stipulation.
Since 1998, the Navy has had a pluralism policy governing the behavior of chaplains, a policy Klingenschmitt ran into headlong when he first attended chaplain school in 2002.
“They taught mandatory lectures there to all chaplains, that you cannot pray to your God, you have to pray to the civic god,” Klingenschmitt explained. “The Muslim chaplain can’t pray to Allah, a Jewish chaplain can’t pray to Adonai, a Roman Catholic can’t pray in the name of the Trinity, and I couldn’t pray in Jesus’ name in public.
“They only let us do that in private. If it’s in public, they tell us to just pray to God and say, ‘Amen.’”
Klingenschmitt, an Episcopal priest, says he challenged the policy at the time, saying that Title X of the U.S. Code allows him to pray “according to the manners and form” of his own church. “And that’s been the law since 1860,” he said.
The chaplain says he believes the 1998 Navy policy illegally overrides U.S. Code.
“They called me an immature chaplain because I claimed the right to pray in Jesus’ name,” Klingenschmitt added.
The “immature” label followed Klingenschmitt to his first chaplain post on a Navy ship. Two years later, his commanding officer, Capt. James M. Carr, wrote to the Navy board, saying Klingenschmitt emphasized his own “faith system” when praying and preaching.
The chaplain says the same officer punished him in July 2004 for a sermon he preached at an optional chapel service.
“In the sermon, I said, ‘Jesus is the way to heaven,’” Klingenschmitt noted. He says he was told the next day: “You can’t say that if unbelievers are in the audience because you’re offending people, and that’s not Navy pluralism.”
In March, Klingenschmitt says, Carr asked the Navy board “to end my career. So I filed a complaint.”
Said Klingenschmitt: “It went into the hands of a Navy judge. My career was on the line. They were going to end it after 14 years – out on the street with no retirement.”
Just before his fast began, Klingenschmitt says, “The Navy stripped me of my uniform for all public appearances” that might include praying in Jesus’ name.
“That’s when I had enough; that’s when I declared my fast,” he said.
Klingenschmitt’s website covers the developments of his case.
The three-year contract extension means the chaplain is still in the Navy and is not in imminent danger of losing his job.
But the civilian-clothes mandate is too restrictive, Klingenschmitt claims.
“That’s not good enough for me,” he said. “I’m continuing my fast, and I’m asking the president to sign an executive order allowing chaplains to pray according to their consciences.”
This is where the line gets thin on the Church and State seperation arguement. This man believes in what he is doing strongly. At what point does political correctness stifle the freedom of expression?
If you believe this is a restriction on public expression of faith…
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, News, PETITIONS
Trackback URL
Comments
20 Responses to “Chaplain ’starves himself’ over Navy no-Jesus prayer policy”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
What this article (and many others on this topic) fails to mention is that this chaplain started this by preaching an evangelistic sermon at a memorial service for a Catholic sailor. Yes, it was a voluntary service, but sailors should not have to choose between being subjected to proselytizing chaplains or not attending a memorial service for a fallen comrade. The sailor being memorialized wasn’t even evangelical. This guy became a chaplain years after this policy was in place. He was tought this policy in the chaplains school. If he had serious issues with it he should never have become a chaplain in the first place. This is not a policy that was added after he became a chaplain. An officer should either do his job as directed or resign. If he doesn’t, he SHOULD be fired, especially if he acts like an infant holding his breath instead of a leader of men.
The POTUS needs to step in and be VERY Presidential, and tell the NAVY to let the man preach the Gospel… If he’s NOT allowed to truly PREACH the Gospel, WHY have a Chaplain in the 1st place??
Wayne:
What this … fails to mention is that this chaplain started this by preaching an evangelistic sermon at a memorial service for a Catholic sailor. Yes, it was a voluntary service, but sailors should not have to choose between being subjected to proselytizing chaplains or not attending a memorial service for a fallen comrade.
Good point. If as described, it was certainly tasteless on the chaplain’s part to do this. However…
This guy became a chaplain years after this policy was in place…. An officer should either do his job as directed or resign. If he doesn’t, he SHOULD be fired, especially if he acts like an infant holding his breath instead of a leader of men.
Iffy point. If the federal law is as the chaplain described it, then he should commit civil disobedience and openly protest the Navy policy for being illegal as well as immoral. That said, if the federal law is not as described, then his refusal to follow settled law should rule him out of military service despite his moral qualms.
As it happens, I can find no such “‘according to the manners and form’ of his own church” language in the law:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle B > PART II > CHAPTER 343 > § 3547
Perhaps some other part of Title X or other law is meant, but I cannot find it.
“What this article (and many others on this topic) fails to mention is that this chaplain started this by preaching an evangelistic sermon at a memorial service for a Catholic sailor.”
Who requested the Chaplain?
Why was an Evangelical Chaplain requested, knowing the deceased was Catholic?
“This guy became a chaplain years after this policy was in place.”
He also, like everyone else, swore an oath to “uphold, protect and defend” the Constitution. The very one that states that the free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited.
Is he violating his oath?
Is he disobeying a lawful order?
I haven’t read much on this issue, but these are questions that come to my mind with what I have read.
Another question… do Catholics not believe in, pray to and worship Christ?
When you restrict the way anyone prays regardless of who or what religion it is a violation of the first amendment which states that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Simple it is unconstitutional.
Pappy is right
“When you restrict the way anyone prays regardless of who or what religion it is a violation of the first amendment which states that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Simple it is unconstitutional. ”
The sad thing is that so many Americans thing that the government has the right to opress its people as is attested by the comments above. But the Tories thought that also so I should not be surprised. We need to fight for the freedom of ourselves and our fellow Americans against these tyrants. Perhaps then we will live in a free country unlike now.
Soldiers accept a lot of restrictions on liberty that our civilian counterparts are not subjected to. You can’t be openly gay or lesbian, officers can’t date enlisted, you can’t have tattoos in certain places or containing certain content, you can’t express certain opinions about your chain of command, you can’t distribute certain types of literature and on and on. As a group we give up some of our personal freedoms so that we can work as one team on the battlefield. In short, all soldiers have to make a reasonable effort to avoid offending other members of the team. It is not as simple as claiming your first amendment right when you are a member of the military. Civilians can’t be tried twice for the same offense, but if a soldier gets a DUI he/she is commonly prosecuted by civilian authorities and again by the military, each metting out its own punishment. But a soldier can’t cry double jeapardy. Lt. Klingenschmitt knew what he was getting into and he knows he is wrong now. He is just playing to the sympathies of evangelical civilians who don’t understand how “out of bounds” he is for a military officer.
“Soldiers accept a lot of restrictions on liberty that our civilian counterparts are not subjected to.”
You are preaching to the choir!
In all your explanation you still failed to answer my questions.
Another question… if the renewed contract stipulates that he can not evoke the name of Jesus while in uniform, what statute of the UCMJ would they use to prosecute a violation?
I am a retired Navy officer who is a very strong Christian of a rather conservative and evangelical nature. I have served as “Lay Leader” onboard two ships which did not have Chaplains. I was also able to hear Chaplain K.’s supervisor’s take on the thing.
Based upon listening to both sides and fitting the words into my background in the Navy, my conclusion is that Chaplain K. is at best mistaken and at worst out-and-out lying to us in order to advance a claim of victimhood. (Recent blogs by bloggers such as drsanity.blogspot.com) illustrate narcissism among the Left; it occurs on our side, too.
My experience in the Navy is that Chaplains are representative of *both* their faith *and* the command. When leading a worship service, he (or she) represents his faith. When acting on behalf of the command, he represents the command. (E.g., if a Jew comes to a Christian chaplain for aid in finding Jewish services, the chaplain is obliged to help.) In counseling situations, the roles are mixed.
We need to be wary of being too knee-jerk. Anecdote: a few years back a local high school music teacher was complaining in the papers that he was being fired for using Christmas music at a concert. Also quoted in the article was the head of the PTA, who sided with the administration. My boss mentioned to me that the PTA head had been an elder at his church before he moved, and that something sounded fishy.
It sounded fishy to me, too, since our high school (in the same district) had presented Godspell the previous year and always had Christian Christmas songs as part of the winter music concerts. I found the PTA guy’s phone number, and called him. Turned out the teacher hadn’t been teaching the kids, had skipped a lot of classes, and for the music program was to have his high school choir sing along with a CD of contemporary Christian music Christmas songs. Making a long story short, Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) investigated and decided not to support the teacher.
Moral to the story: the liberal MSM likes to play “ain’t it awful”; sometimes conservatives fall into the same trap.
I just don’t understand whats so bad about saying Jesus at the end of a prayer.
I’m not falling into a trap, the only commentary I said in the post was that it was a thin line.
There is a thin line, and no one has really answered my question.
At what point does political correctness begin to stifle free speech?
This comment is directed to crosstalk:
I served for five years in the Marine Corps and have nothing but complete contempt for the Chaplain Corps. While your argument that these people are officers and men of God is partially correct, it does nothing to address the core issue here.
I spent thousands of dollars and years of effort in order to be married to a Japanese citizen on Okinawa. I ended up having to stand in front of a 3-star Marine general simply so I could be allowed to get married. I was then told that I was not allowed to leave my apartment due to the ridiculous restrictions placed upon junior enlisted Marines there, namely yours truly.
When I objected to these restriction, in particular the one that said I could not stay out on liberty hours past midnight, I was told to shut up and fall back into ranks. When I took it up with the chaplains, I was told that they were given explicit orders to enforce this contemptible order.
In effect, they were saying that I could not attend Midnight Mass on Christmas, could not join my wife when she went to stay at her friend’s house, could not stay overnight at a hotel while on a 72 or 96 hour pass. Basically, I was told that I was an official third-class citizen on account of my rank. I was under house arrest for the crime of electing to join the Marines and being ordered, not requesting but ordered, to Okinawa.
Discrimination is discouraged in the Naval Services. Unless it is directed at rank.
Not my past behavior, which was spotless, not my service record, not anything official. I, and my wife, were roped into an official state of mass punishment because I was a Lance Corporal. For political reasons. To appease the lefty anti-American Japanese politicians.
I found out that “Honor, Courage, Committment” only applied to the officer corps. I had no right to honor as an enlisted man. I had no honor. I did not rate it.
When I brought my objections to this cynical order to various chaplains, they told me that they would like to help me, but their carrers were on the line. That my wife converted to Christianity and we were married in the Church did not matter.
Military chaplains are not the same as regular officers. They answer a calling to God AND the colors. In a righteous world, they should be the voice of conscience in a unit, ensuring that the honor of their charges is not trampled willy-nilly to fit into some excreble mission model.
Or some namby-pamby notion of the PC police. If you take God away from the chaplains, then they become nothing more than rubber-stamp yes-men to the higher ups.
Or just another naval officer.
Bottom line is that there is nothing that states that chaplains can’t use the name Jesus when praying, publicly or privately. Especially a Christian chaplain whose job is to instruct and encourage from a Christ perspective. Military men and women do not lose their right to religious expression when they enlist, nor do government officials when they swear their oath of office. I also find it ironic that the left find anti-war protestors and other tree-hugging hippies heroic and noble when they protest in this way, yet a Christian chaplain does it and he’s labled immature.
If this chaplain signed a contract stating he could not pray in Jesus’ name, then he has no one to fault but himself. But in that same token, he would not have gotten the job otherwise, which is totally un-Constitutional. The left will have to someday wake up and realize that America is a free country, and that we all have the right to religious expression no matter what our status or occupation. There is nothing in our Constitution that says otherwise, and any restriction or law that does violence to this freedom or impinges one’s right to express their faith, then it should be scrapped according to law. Label the guy whatever you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that his freedoms are being violated. If the ACLU truly defended civil liberties, they’d be all over this one. Now its true soldiers are not civillians, and do not have a lot of the same rights. But our Constitution does not stipulate that military men and women lose certain religious freedoms when they enlist, and the fact that they have been praying in Jesus’ name not only in public military assembly but also in Congress for 200 years, gives evidence to what was intended. The left have infiltrated every level of our society, including the military, in order to change America to a somewhat mild version of Soviet Russia.
Response to Peter Bland.
Thank you for sharing your history there. I do not want to defend the USMC policy in Okinawa—it’s not a policy I like. I would point out that the Chaplain did not make the policy; the USMC (under the authority of Congress) did. The Chaplain was powerless (as in, didn’t have the authority or ability) to change the rule, so blaming him is misdirected.
It is also not the subject of this thread.
To echo apostle:
Bottom line is that there is nothing that states that chaplains can’t use the name Jesus when praying, publicly or privately. Especially a Christian chaplain whose job is to instruct and encourage from a Christ perspective. Military men and women do not lose their right to religious expression when they enlist, nor do government officials when they swear their oath of office.
Again, it appears that Chaplain K. is being misleading at best.
Moral to the story: the liberal MSM likes to play “ain’t it awful”; sometimes conservatives fall into the same trap.
And I must point out that I did not expect the chaplain to change the policy.
I did expect him to mention it when their idiocy had severe negative impacts on morale. I did expect him to bring it up when it was impacting family life in an extremely negative way.
He caved instead. Later I learned from the RP that he was explicitly told that if he ever objected he would find a negative review in his service record the next day.
Officers use fancy schmancy words like “force multiplier” often. They do not seem to care if their idiotic, vaporous notions have any impact on the lives of their charges. In this case, it was a severe “force divider”. I was written up several times for failing to abide by the curfew while I was transiting between guard duty and my apartment.
zero tolerance policies=zero intelligence from the “leaders”.
In this case, it seems to me that the changing of chaplains from semi-independant voices of conscience to craven yes-men does nothing for the service I used to love and goes a long way toward encouraging immorality. Let me take this opportunity to mention that there were no chaplains in Abu Ghraib during the prisoner abuse, and the commander who replaced General Karpinski made it a point to bring them in.
As to the “vested power” issue, just because you have the POWER to do something does not mean that you necassarily SHOULD do it. The old adage “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” comes to mind.
Case in point:
Again, while I was on Okinawa I had to get my wife’s vehicle plates changed from “?” to “Y” so that we could drive on base. After spending two weeks, $350 in fees and endless paperwork I was told that a new order came down yesterday prohibiting it. A policy that stipulated that no “unaccompanied dependant” should be allowed to drive on base.
We were forced to have our car towed in and impounded, pay $30 a day for the honor of keeping a vehicle that my wife already paid for sit in storage and our protests to this went nowhere.
Turns out that some Maj with rocks in his skull decided that the spiffy way to reduce traffic accidents was to keep “unaccompanied dependants” from driving. Period. Zero tolerance. Even if the dependant in question was had been driving in Japan for 15 years, was fluent in Japanese, owned the Japanese car from a Japanese car dealership, and is a citizen of Japan. (my wife)
Maj Dumb*** then went on vacation-with a tidy little “Good Job Bob!” note in his service record for “working to reduce traffic incidents”. He handed over his shop (G7) to a CWO 5, who promptly changed it back and gave everyone who was caught up in this net, including me, permission in writing to get the liscense plates to drive on base. Why?
Because he had a Japanese wife who he married when he was a LCpl. And he understood the hardships we lived under with this policy, having been there himself. He did not get in trouble-he retired three months later. He tried to get Maj Dumb*** to listen to his objections, to no avail.
Maj Dumb*** REALLY wanted that promotion to LtCol. And he got it, of course.
Funny little side-note: I paid half what a Japanese citizen similar to me did for insurance because I was a Marine LCpl, not despite it. And yet I was a “danger to other drivers”. As was my wife.
Point is that the “vested power” argument does not work with me-for the simple reason that I refuse to submit to orders that impact negatively on my wife. I am no fool.
My family has served in the military for decades, male and female, in all conflicts since WW2. I know that I do not enjoy all the rights of ordinary citizens when I enlist.
But that does not mean that my WIFE ‘S life needs to be hell on Earth. She should be left the hell alone, regardless of how much pretty brass someone wears on their shiny new uniform.
I made my objections known to my command on this and many other “quality of life” issues. No joy. There were only two things left to me then. Request Mast and going to the “Chaplain”. I found a third, and transferred out of that command to III MEF headquarters, where my wife was treated like a human being instead of a “mail-order bride”. (that was precious. who says officers do not have a sense of humor? I should have killed the SOB)
Basically, you seem to want Chaplains to be like any other officer, when they are manifestly NOT. If that were so, then any flag officer could wave his little wand at some jg or lt and make him and ersatz “chaplain”. You don’t tell a pilot he can’t fly, you don’t tell a PC he can’t lead his platoon, and you shouldn’t limit the expression of Chaplains.
Why do you think I am in the Army now? I know that I am a pawn in their game, but at least they do not forcibly remind me of it every day. And they seem to give a tinker’s damn about me.
crosstalk…
I question your conclusion you refered to in post #15.
After responding to Wayne, I did a search on this issue and read numerous articles from various sources.
Your conclusion, in my opinion, is wrong!
Lt. Klingenschmitt I AGREE with what you are doing! I would be willing to go on hunger strike with you! We are not allowed to say Prayer in our children’s schools. The Pledge of Allengence has been altered because of the name “GOD” and now we can not say in “Jesus Name I Pray”,Hey everyone HE IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE ON EARTH! HE PAID THE PRICE FOR US, WHY CAN’T WE STAND UP FOR HIM NOW? YES, “IN JESUS NAME I WILL ALWAYS PRAY”. Comment by Lorrie in Texas on January 6,2006.
He has made his point and won from what I understand Lorrie.
Lt. Klingenschmitt Sir, I am not sure if you read these comments that are made on this site but I hope you will read mine. I wrote to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Rick Perry, Laura Miller, and I will keep writting to help support what is right! I am asking them to give back your Uniform,Your Position, Your Freedom of Prayer and the Respect that you deserve for serving Our Country and Our God.
As Americans we believe in liberty. We will even fight for the liberty of other countries. We want them to enjoy the freedoms we have. Yet, we as a country are rejected today. We are not as respected as we once were. Could it be because the world sees our hypocrisy.
Being a christian, believing in Jesus Christ, and honoring Him seems to almost be criminal in America.
I pray that the Gospel of Jesus Christ continues,that all may hear,and come to believe every tongue must confess Jesus and every knee must bow before Him.
This Chaplain is a chaplain for many people of differing religious background. As such, he needs to be mindful that others believe differently from him and he needs to give them the same quality spiritual service that he gives to someone of his own religion.
The Navy is not telling him he can’t pray to his God in private, only while conducting service or in the uniform of the US Navy, during which times he is in effect representing the Navy and all the Sailors and Marines therein. He must be a spiritual leader for all of those men and women, not just those of his own religion.
Keep your private prayers and belief in private.