<p>Congressional panel directs Navy to rescind policy barring 'sectarian' prayers</p>
<p>The Naval Academy is one of the few remaining institutions where prayer is still conducted at meals.</p>
<p>The Air Force was also affected by the Defense Appropriations Act.</p>
<p>Good for the Looie. Better for the Navy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Naval Academy is one of the few remaining institutions where prayer is still conducted at meals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't say it too loud. The ACLU will immediately try and "correct" the situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't say it too loud. The ACLU will immediately try and "correct" the situation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The ACLU (American Criminal Liberties Union) has already been successful in having prayer removed from VMI. The Naval Academy interpreted the Supreme Court ruling as being a narrow decision that didn't apply to the academy. For the time being, the status quo prevails at Annapolis. :)</p>
<p>This is a hot audio!</p>
<p>I heard one of my upperclass say one day that the ACLU can't do anything unless a mid is the one who complains about the prayer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I heard one of my upperclass say one day that the ACLU can't do anything unless a mid is the one who complains about the prayer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is correct. The ACLU needs to have a plaintiff to file a suit. That's how they were successful at removing prayer at VMI; they were able to get a couple of cadets to complain about the mealtime prayers.</p>
<p>I'll bet that if those cadets are serving in either Iraq or Afghanistan today, they probably pray before going on combat missions.</p>
<p>In the VMI case, Assoc. Justice Thomas recused himself because his son was a VMI cadet at the time. Even with Clarence Thomas' vote the ACLU still would have won the case. Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas vs. their liberal activist colleagues -- no contest.</p>
<p>Archbishop O'Brien, head of the Catholic Military Archdiocese opposes the law passed by the House as bad for the military and bad for religion in the military.</p>
<p>Article link: <a href="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605633.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605633.htm</a>
Here is his quote:</p>
<p>But Archbishop O'Brien said the legislation would have elevated "the so-called 'rights' of a military chaplain above those of the military and its people."</p>
<p>"Our military is a pluralistic society that relies heavily on unit cohesion," he wrote. "When military chaplains, who are assigned as chaplains for the entire unit, are called upon to deliver public prayer to mandatory attended gatherings, they are speaking with some form of command sanction.</p>
<p>"This legislation would appear to give the 'right' to a chaplain to decide independently to use denominational-specific prayer in any setting," Archbishop O'Brien added. "To avoid the obvious adverse effect on unit cohesion that such activity would cause, it is entirely possible that commanders, who are ultimately responsible to protect the free exercise of religion for all their people, would decide to dispense with public prayer entirely. Our military would not be well served by this turn of events."</p>
<p>Archbishop O'Brien said military chaplains will continue to have the right to pray as they see fit at voluntarily attended worship services.</p>
<p>The military archdiocese "has long been an advocate for the constitutional rights of military chaplains to preach in accordance with their religious convictions when preaching to their congregations," he said.</p>
<p>The archdiocese "vigorously supported the efforts of Air Force chaplains Father Vincent Rigdon and Rabbi David Kay in their litigation against the then-secretary of defense (William J. Perry) when these dedicated military chaplains were ordered not to preach to their congregations about legislation banning partial-birth abortion," Archbishop O'Brien noted.</p>
<p>"We were most gratified when the federal judge held impermissible the military attempts to restrict or limit military chaplains who were performing their duties as clergy conducting voluntarily attended worship services," he added.</p>
<p>The Chaplian Corps has been experiencing "difficulties" in fulfilling their moral duties because their senior and flag officers are promoting the concept of universalism espoused by the Harvard School of Divinity.</p>
<p>Chaps Klingenschmitt's [url=<a href="http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy6/WND28Jun06.pdf%5Dcomplaint%5B/url">http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy6/WND28Jun06.pdf]complaint[/url</a>] reveals how ridiculous the environment had become for the Chaplain Corps.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, based on Ruehe's ruling, the chaplain says the complaint against him also includes preaching the gospel at an optional service a memorial for a sailor.</p>
<p>Klingenschmitt said his line-by-line explanation of Romans chapter 8 during the memorial service was the same message given to the sailor before he died from a motorcycle accident.</p>
<p>The sailor responded, the chaplain said, by "dedicating his life to Jesus Christ."</p>
<p>But after the sermon at the service, which "included references to Jesus Christ as the way of salvation," Klingenschmitt said he received complaints from Carr and others, who claimed they were offended by the "exclusive" message.</p>
<p>Klingenschmitt argues the Romans 8 text was approved by the command and attendance at the service was voluntary.</p>
<p>"I was preaching at a memorial service, honoring the Christian faith of the deceased sailor, saying he's in heaven today because of his faith in Jesus Christ," Klingenschmitt said.</p>
<p>The chaplain says the Navy's objection to his preaching contradicts its public statements.</p>
<p>"This proves that for six months senior naval officials have been lying to the public, claiming chaplains are free during optional worship to preach what their denominations preach," Klingenschmitt told WND
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ruehe also responded to Klingenschmitt's complaint about another incident involving the content of prayer. Each evening the chaplain says a short prayer over the ship's PA system. Klingenschmitt said Carr censored his prayers, asked him to pray a "Jewish" prayer so as not to offend a Jewish sailor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find it mind boggling to comprehend why the senior officers in the Chaplian Corps are so concerned about offending military members. Maybe they had better stop preaching about sin and hell -- you don't want to step on any toes. This is BS -- pure and simple.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Navy, the admiral said, "must be sensitive to the requirements of the Constitution's Establishment Clause which prohibits official government endorsement of sectarian religious beliefs."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the same bogus crap that we always hear about "separation of church and state." The Establishment Clause (i.e., the First Amendment) prohibits Congress from establishing a religion; it doesn't say anything about separation of church and state. That term was never mentioned in any legal decision until 1947. The case concerned the spending public funds to bus children to private christian schools in New Jersey. The court actually ruled that using public funds in such a manner was constitutional.</p>
<p>Complaint alleges embattled chaplain punished for praying 'in Jesus name'</p>
<p>Posted on WorldNetDaily this afternoon:</p>
<p>
[quote]
A lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. Navy on behalf of Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt by a public interest law firm whose founder says the basic issue to be determined is whether the government can control how people pray. </p>
<p>"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." </p>
<p>"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....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Prayer isn't illegal anywhere, and Jesus exhorted us to pray quietly in our closets. The people who must shout their prayers for all to hear were called Pharisees. My D is in public school, and there is a Bible study group and a Prayer Group, both are obviously Christian in nature, and they can exist freely because no one is forced to adhere to their exercise of religion, regardless of their own personal faith. I doubt the Christians would take it kindly if a military chaplain was Muslim and asked to pray in the name of Allah (nor should they - no matter what shoe the foot is on, it is coercive to have a government authority telling you to whom you should be praying.)</p>
<p>All just IMO, of course.</p>
<p>You seemingly concur with the current cultural company line that diversity and tolerance trump the Christian heritage of our nation, which is great only because of that heritage. And it may be no coincidence of our escalating decadence as we shed that mantel. Truly, we and ours seems to be an ever-sadder lot in decline with a pile of arrogance to believe that ours will be the first-ever society to survive simply because we have been blessed for the past couple hundred years. Frankly, believing your thought, all of which sounds very logical and "fair" is the essence of our once great nation's issue.</p>
<p>I really have no desire to debate or even irritate. But in my ever-older age, I'm simply unwilling to buy your well-meant ideal having watched where it has led my country. And I'm not optimistic because your notion wins out apparently. Please be assured that my response is offered respectfully and in, dare I say it, love as Jesus might have portrayed. Having studied some of Him, I cannot imagine He's real pleased with what we're saying and doing.</p>
<p>All just IMO, of course.</p>
<p>btw, we agree in recognizing that prayer is not an illegality practice and that we'd all be alot better off if we did alot more of it both in and out of the public square.</p>
<p>Taken from another point of view, I have to admit I am disappointed with the chaplain's behavior. </p>
<p>He is still an officer in the United States Navy; he was given a direct order which he refused to obey. No one was telling him that he could not pray. He was ordered not to invoke the name of Jesus when in uniform serving in the role of Navy chaplain. </p>
<p>Like many others on this board, I am deeply religious. But I also understand the importance of obeying orders. If the chaplain feels his military service is in conflict with his faith, then he should give up the uniform. Sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines do not have the luxury of choosing the orders they will obey.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines do not have the luxury of choosing the orders they will obey.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not a correct statement. If a service member is given an immoral or illegal order, he/she has no obligation to obey that order. My commissioning certificate states: "And, this officer is to observe and follow such orders and directions from time to time, as may be given by the President if the United States of America or other superior officers, acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America."</p>
<p>During the Nuremburg trials, the Nazis claimed that they were following orders; those claims didn't cut it. During the court martial for the My Lai massacre, Lieutenat Calley also claimed that he was just following orders; that claim didn't cut it either.</p>
<p>One of the reasons our military is so great is because our service members are not trained to be automatons; they are trained to think for themselves and to adapt to situations in the battle field as they arise. Blindly following orders does not result in combat victories.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One of the reasons our military is so great is because our service members are not trained to be automatons; they are trained to think for themselves and to adapt to situations in the battle field as they arise. Blindly following orders does not result in combat victories.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Amen, brother.</p>
<p>Comparing a desire to pray, while in uniforn, to one's particular deity does not compare to turning a blind eye to mass murder. Please don't equate the two. Having heard the chaplain speak, and having heard those in his chain of command, I am reminded of the man who fought to get "under God" stricken from our Pledge of Allegiance. This is a battle he chose that really serves no one any particular good but allows him to gain some notoriety.</p>
<p>If he wants to pick a fight about something, let it be an issue of importance.</p>
<p>'We are homeless, jobless, and we are in God's hands'</p>
<p>Posted on WorldNetDaily.com:</p>
<p>
[quote]
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."</p>
<p>"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."...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Posted on NavyTimes.com:</p>
<p>
[quote]
A Navy chaplain convicted last year of disobeying a lawful order after he wore his uniform to a press conference outside the White House has asked a federal appeals court to block his discharge.</p>
<p>Navy officials have confirmed that Lt. Gordon J. Klingenschmitt is scheduled to be discharged Jan. 31....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>IMO, it's time for Klingenschmitt to move on. Expecting a federal court to get involved in this case is wishful thinking. The correct avenue to appeal is the Court of Military Appeals (COMA). :eek:</p>
<p>There are no atheists in fox holes.</p>