Stones Cry Out

Are you interested in the truth?

If you are going to publish material on this issue, please try to ensure your facts are correct.

This chaplain did not pray at a religious event. He prayed at what his spokesman characterized as a press conference. His spokesman stated that it was not a “divine worship service, it’s a press conference.” Don’t believe me? Go to his own website at: http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy3/RevRobSchenckSpeech.pdf and check it out.

The event at which he prayed, and was found guilty of disobeying an order was a press conference/protest. It was held to protest Navy policy advising against offering sectarian prayers in a non-worship setting. Something the policy does not prohibit, but suggests it not be done. Before the chaplain prayed, while in uniform, he was handing out copies of a document very similar to the one you can find at the website I listed above. This is a protest document with words from someone he claims to be his “spokesman.” He passed these documents out to the media, while in uniform.

I ask you, is the act of passing out documents to the media a worship service? Does it not violate a direct order from his Commanding Officer to not make a media appearance while in uniform? To not deliberately engage the media?

This man has lied about what he is doing. He lied about what his court-martial was about. Don’t let him continue to garner your sympathy as a Christian and use you to support a cause that is non-existent. He is free to pray anyway he wishes in uniform when he is conducting a worship service. If he is asked to pray in a non-worship setting (a retirement ceremony or a change of command), he is asked to pray in an inclusive manner, and if he cannot, he is free to choose to not participate.

If you are still interested in the truth, the military judge never ruled that worship is limited to Sundays in the chapel one hour per week. Just as in your calling to religion, in this case, seek the truth. You will be amazed at what you find.

First off, you certainly have a valid point about this being something of a protest in and of itself. I would split a bit of a hair here and note that the protest was specifically about how new rules were being applied or interpreted for Navy chaplains, hence his appearing in uniform.

But he has not lied about what his court martial was about. It may have been ostensibly about following orders, but the point he was making was about the legitimacy of the reinterpretation of the rules is just as much a reason for it. It was the purpose for the test case.

I'd suggest that you're wrong saying that the sectarian prayer was "something the policy does not prohibit, but suggests it not be done". If it was merely a suggestion, there wouldn't have been a court martial. The handout you pointed to said that, other than for specifically religious services "religious elements...should be non-sectarian in nature". Doesn't sound like a "suggestion" to me, and fair game for a First Amendment challenge.

Nice try Anon, but why was Jesus outlawed in 2006?

What was appropriate about saying Jesus in 2005, but inappropriate in 2006?

That is the issue, and eagerly await your answer. . . .

Doug:

Just so we are clear, I am someone close to the case and privy to every document filed in it. Let me be perfectly frank on this, this case had absolutely nothing to do with the Navy’s policy on prayers. That might have been the subject matter and purpose of the protest/press conference, but he was not charged with violating that policy.

He was not charged with praying in public (whether using Jesus’ name or not) in uniform.

The military has had a long prohibition against its service members protesting against or for anything while in uniform. The reason for this is simple. A member in uniform appears to be officially representing the Navy’s view on a particular matter when they are in fact representing their own personal views. As a result, the services do not want them to wear a uniform.

This chaplain was given a very clear order from his commanding officer in December that he was not to wear his uniform to media appearances without receiving prior permission. This stemmed from the fact that he was about to appear on the Bill O’Reilly show in uniform. He requested permission to wear his uniform to what he referred to as a “bona fide religious observance” in January. He was told in a letter from his command that he would not be given specific permission to do this since the event he was speaking about appeared to be something other than a “bona fide religious observance.”

He attended an even outside the White House at which he prayed, read scripture, hymns were sung, a sermon was given by another pastor, more hymns were sung, and he took and offered communion. Sounds like a worship service doesn’t it? As a result, he was not punished for this event even though media was present.

The order mentioned above was never rescinded. On 30 March, he attended a press conference in Washington, DC at which he and others protested the Navy’s policy. He was in uniform. While in uniform, and before he prayed, he passed out protest-related documents to the media. When the press conference began, he offered a prayer and stood shoulder-to-shoulder, in uniform with others who spoke on his behalf against the Navy policy. The claimed to be his spokesman, and he claimed them as such in the documents he was passing out to the media prior to the event starting. They stated, both in writing and orally that the event he was appearing at was not a “bona fide religious observance,” but that it was a press conference. They further stated that he knew he was violating the order given him by his commanding officer and expected to be punished for it. He in turn told the media after the event, not in uniform, that he had violated the order and expected to be punished for it. He likened himself to Rosa Parks. At his court-martial, through his counsel, he denied violating the order, and instead argued that the order was not applicable to the 30 March event either because it had been modified or because it was a “bona fide religious observance.” Was he lying on 30 March or was he lying in court?

If you really care to know the truth and learn it, you cannot possibly claim that he was punished for “praying in Jesus’ name while in uniform.” If you care to ascertain the facts, you will be convinced, as the members of his court-martial were, that he instead violated his commanding officer’s order not to wear his uniform to media appearances without receiving prior permission.

If you have not been in the military, you might think this is a trivial matter. It is not. He has 14 years in the military and is a graduate of the Air Force Academy. He is not some young chaplain straight out of seminary. He knew better. He knew it was wrong to violate his commanding officer’s order, and particularly in such a public manner. He was daring his commanding officer to do something about it. His command, tried to handle the matter at a much lower level, but he refused, claiming he wanted his day in court. Once in court, he didn’t put on a case. Why? Because he didn’t have one. He knew the act of passing out the documents to the media while in uniform was a violation of the order and could, in no way, characterize that as a “bona fide religious observance.”

It matters not what the subject of the protest was. He is not allowed, under Navy rules and regulations, to wear his uniform while attending a protest in his personal capacity. The fact that the protest was about Navy policy does not give him the right to wear his uniform while there.

You state “But he has not lied about what his court martial was about. It may have been ostensibly about following orders…” This case was not “ostensibly about following orders” it was wholly about following orders. He does not get to decide what the case is about, the command convening the court-martial decides what it was about. He could have been there answering questions about the weather and would have still been prosecuted as long as he was doing so in uniform, and before the media. That is what the order was about, and that is what the case was about.

You also state, “…the point he was making was about the legitimacy of the reinterpretation of the rules is just as much a reason for it. It was the purpose for the test case.” Despite this not being an issue at trial, you and he have this wrong. There was no “reinterpretation of the rules.” The Navy has always had a tradition of offering non-sectarian prayers in non-sectarian settings. This was explained to him at chaplain’s school and he chose to come into the Navy anyway. The SECNAV instruction merely more specifically formalized what had always been the larger practice. That said, the policy does not forbid praying in Jesus’ name in a non-worship setting. It leaves the matter in the discretion of the commander responsible for the non-worship event. It also does not force chaplains to give a prayer in a setting where they are not comfortable delivering a non-sectarian prayer. A chaplain can refuse to give the prayer if he is uncomfortable with the guidance by the commander, and nothing negative will happen to him.

You could not be further from the truth when you state “I'd suggest that you're wrong saying that the sectarian prayer was ‘something the policy does not prohibit, but suggests it not be done’. If it was merely a suggestion, there wouldn't have been a court martial.” Again, he was not charged with violating the policy, he was charged with violating an order not to wear his uniform to media appearances without receiving prior permission.

Please read what you wrote, “The handout you pointed to said that, other than for specifically religious services ‘religious elements...should be non-sectarian in nature’. Doesn't sound like a ‘suggestion’ to me, and fair game for a First Amendment challenge.” “Should be non-sectarian in nature” is indeed suggestive in nature. If it were directive it would read “shall be. . .”

Greg:

“Nice try Anon, but why was Jesus outlawed in 2006? What was appropriate about saying Jesus in 2005, but inappropriate in 2006? That is the issue, and eagerly await your answer. . . .”
I honestly have no idea what you mean so it is very difficult to respond. “Why was Jesus outlawed in 2006” is a nice bumper sticker, but it means nothing. I am guessing that you feel “Jesus was outlawed” when the new SECNAV instruction came out? What about that instruction outlawed Jesus? A navy chaplain can pray anyway his faith dictates in the chapel. He can pray anyway his faith dictates in private. He can pray anyway his faith dictates at a command function if the commander who owns the function agrees to it. Command functions are not religious events. They are often mandatory and attended by people of many faiths and people of no faith. Why should a chaplain be able to dictate how such an event is carried out rather than the commander who owns the event?
I imagine I will here more from both of you and others on this topic, but it is readily apparent you are only interested in Klingenschmitt’s disinformation, and not the truth. Personally, as a Christian, I am ashamed to be in the same faith group as someone with such an appalling lack of character.

Anon,

You have not answered the question: Why change the rule in 2006?

What changed?

Although I do not understand (nor care about) your Klingenschmitt fixation, please try to answer the question dispassionately.

I just don’t get why the Navy decided that they had to restrict the use of Jesus’ name.

You cannot answer the question either.

Looking forward to your second attempt. . . .

Greg,

I have not answered your question because your question has no basis in fact. Jesus has not been “outlawed” in the Navy, or anywhere else in America.

The “rules” did not change. The “rules” are a tradition that has been in place since we have had a Navy and since before that in other parts of our society.

I am the one being dispassionate and looking at this case with objectivity. You cannot seem to accept that facts that Jesus has not been outlawed in the Navy and the chaplain was prosecuted for violating an order, not praying in Jesus’ name, or for praying period.

Anon, I appreciate your in-depth explanation of the case, and I'll take it at face value. It does seem like Klingenschmitt is hanging quite a bit on the phrase "bona fide religious observance" to justify his uniform wearing. A couple of questions:

* Has that phrase been defined? How much of what the officer does not participate in have to be religious? Could it cover something that is just like a Sunday morning service except that the sermon is a political statement?

* I think Greg's question is, why did the SECNAV think it necessary to codify tradition? Were there things happening that he didn't approve of? If so, what were they? It just seems that the codifying of tradition would be for some specific reason or reasons.

Thanks.

Doug,

Thank you for your patience and moderating tone in response. I realize this is a very emotional issue for many folks, so all I ask is that one approaches it with an open mind.

SECNAV INSTRUCTION 1730.7C defines divine worship service (synonymous with “bona fide religious observance”) as:

“A term of art used in Section 6031 of reference (a) (Title 10, United States Code) and Article 0817 of reference (b) (U.S. Navy Regulations, 1990) to refer to public worship and religious services conducted afloat, in the field, or on military bases and installations by a military chaplain. Under reference (a), Commanders "shall cause divine services to be performed" and a chaplain has the right to conduct divine services "according to the manner and forms" of his or her religious organization. Divine Services are command functions, which take place according to the manner and forms of religious organizations. Participation in Divine Services shall be voluntary, with the exception of personnel present in an official support capacity.”

It basically means a worship service. As you can see, it also only applies at sea and aboard an installation. A chaplain is entitled to wear his uniform to something like this or another official Navy function (like a military funeral), but it not necessarily entitled to wear it to a worship service in the civilian community. It should also be noted that LT K rarely, if ever, wore his uniform while conducting a divine worship service. He normally wore a civilian clerical collar.

The part of the instruction you are interested in reads:

“6. Responsibilities of Commanders

a. Commanders shall provide a Command Religious Program (CRP) in support of religious needs and preferences of the members of their commands, eligible family members and other authorized personnel. The CRP is supported with appropriated funds at a level consistent with other personnel programs within
DON.

b. Chaplains will not be compelled to participate in religious activities inconsistent with their beliefs.

c. Commanders retain the responsibility to provide guidance for all command functions. In planning command functions, commanders shall determine whether a religious element is appropriate. In considering the appropriateness for including a religious element, commanders, with appropriate advice from a chaplain, should assess the setting and context of the function; the diversity of faith that may be represented among the participants; and whether the function is mandatory for all hands. Other than Divine/Religious Services, religious elements
for a command function, absent extraordinary circumstances, should be non sectarian in nature. Neither the participation of a chaplain, nor the inclusion of a religious element, in and of themselves, renders a command function a Divine Service or public worship. Once a commander determines a religious element
is appropriate, the chaplain may choose to participate based on his or her faith constraints. If the chaplain chooses not to participate, he or she may do so with no adverse consequences. Anyone accepting a commander's invitation to provide religious elements at a command function is accountable for following the
commander's guidance. (emphasis added)

A command function belongs to the commander, and as such, he/she has the responsibility for the manner in which the function is conducted. If a prayer is to be offered, the chaplain giving the prayer must follow the commander’s guidance, or bow out of the function with no penalty.

You should also note that the instruction states:

“d. Chaplains. . .

(2) As a condition of appointment, every RMP must be willing to function in a pluralistic environment in the military, where diverse religious traditions exist side-by-side with tolerance and respect. Every RMP must be willing to
support directly and indirectly the free exercise of religion by all military members of the DON, their family members, and other persons authorized to be served, in cooperation with other chaplains and RMPs. Chaplains are trained to minister within the specialized demands of the military environment without
compromising the tenets of their own religious tradition.

(3) In providing religious ministry, chaplains shall strive to avoid the establishment of religion to ensure that free exercise rights are protected for all authorized personnel.”

LT K was taught this same philosophy in chaplain’s school and fought it there too.

A Navy Chaplain should not be making a “political statement” in or out of uniform, in or out of a divine worship service. Service members have a limited ability to be involved in the political process. It should also be noted that a service member’s First Amendment rights are not as broad as a non-service member citizen. This is something we accept on entering the service, and it is something the courts have upheld. So, when everyone starts jumping on that bandwagon, stating the Navy is violating a service member’s First Amendment rights, it has to be analyzed carefully because it may not be the case.

I can’t state for sure why the Secretary wanted to codify the instruction because I was not privy to the discussions surrounding the decision to do so. The most likely reason is that all of the services were looking at doing something similar after the complaints at the Air Force Academy. It seemed as if some number of chaplains were ignoring their role of “function[ing] in a pluralistic environment in the military” and were not “striv[ing] to avoid the establishment of religion to [in order to] ensure that free exercise rights are protected for all authorized personnel.” Many chaplains were trying to convert service members who were not interested in converting and doing so outside of a chapel setting. One must remember that the First Amendment not only provides for freedom of religion, it provides for freedom from religion as well.

The way Greg was asking the question made it unanswerable. It is like asking, “Greg, when did you stop using heroin?” Jesus has not been outlawed in the Navy, so I could not answer why Jesus has been outlawed.

Thanks again for the tempered response.

I'm assuming what you're saying is true, and responding to it as such. However, I'm reserving a grain of salt as you're doing this anonymously. Perhaps it is because, as you say, you're close to the case and can't be public about this, but I just want you to know that I'm keeping a bit of skepticism about this. Having said that, thank you for the specific citations and your information.

Regarding the purpose of the court martial: If I may use the Rosa Parks example, Ms. Parks did indeed break the law, as did Lt. Klingenschmitt. Both were prosecuted under the law in question, but the reason for the initial trespass was something larger than the specific law. In Ms. Parks case, sitting in the wrong part of the bus was to protest the Jim Crow laws. In Lt. K's case, it is, according to him, to protest the ability of commanders to put at least a partial muzzle on chaplains. Whether the law in each case was broken or not was never the issue. Ms. Parks did indeed sit in the wrong part of the bus that one time even though she sat in the black section many times before. Yet her past behavior was not held against her in the effort to help chip away at racial discrimination, just as Lt. K's shouldn't be.

You are absolutely correct, and I noted in the original post, that servicemen and women do indeed voluntarily waive some of their First Amendment rights when they join the military. I don't dispute that Lt. K disobeyed an order or spoke in a manner outside of military tradition. (Although I do note that Lt. K does dispute that. Whether he really believes this or if this is a legal maneuver to press the issue is unknown to me.) What I see going on here is an attempt to shed light on a policy that Lt. K does and, as you noted, has for quite some time disagreed with.

On this last point, I would note that I don't see this as much a deal as when someone signs up for the military and then balks when asked to fight. Lt. K is willing to do his duty and follow orders under the vast majority of situations. He is balking when he's held back by the military, not when he's sent to do his duty. Just wanted to deal with that potential parallel.

I don't see this as a "political statement". It's a disagreement with policy (a policy, in this case, expressed in an order, but it's the policy that's the issue). So the protest was not political.

To suggest that freedom from attempts at religious conversion are somehow related to the First Amendment is, I must say, way off base. I understand that people may not wish to be proselytized and would not like pushy pastors, but to say that this is asserting a freedom "from" religion is to expressly misread the Constitution, to the point that this idea, even and especially outside the military, would have the opposite effect the framers had in mind. If religious folks must be silent about their religion whenever in the presence of anyone outside their religion, that would chill religious expression, not free it. The vast majority of the Founding Fathers saw religion to be essential to a free people. Now, whether or not you agree with that, the fact is that the First Amendment was written to allow free religious speech. Period. It was in no way intended to protect people from hearing that free religious speech. If religion is in the public square, you will hear it. The only way to have freedom from it is to outlaw it outside of what become secret societies. You can't read both interpretations of "freedom of" and "freedom from" in the same phrase.

Perhaps this is another thing Lt. K is trying to expose within the military. Perhaps not, but if it is a pervasive belief, than it needs exposing.

I am a Christian and an AF officer. I empathize with Chaplain Klingenschmitt's motivation for ministry to the military and I, too, feel the apparent "criminalization" of Christianity in today's military. I agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christians to say "Jesus" in the military. That said, I think he's gone about it all wrong, even to the detriment of his own cause.

As a military member I can attest to the fact that we are well briefed on when not to wear our uniforms. We are not allowed to wear our uniforms at ANY event which may imply military endorsement or may "embarrass" the military. Political involvement is specifically mentioned because of a historical American fear of inappropriate "military influence" of civilian politics. You may not think it was a political event, but your/my/our interpretation is not the rule. The panel of military officers obviously did. "A disagreement with a military policy" should have been handled through military channels. Yes, there is some room for interpretation. In the end, however, there are few military people that feel it was appropriate for Ch K to wear his uniform at what was quite clearly a press conference or "political "protest." So he was not convicted of simply "being a chaplain." He was convicted of wearing his uniform at an inappropriate event, which is a violation of standing orders (not a new one he had just received).

The Rosa Parks analogy is interesting. It's important to note, however, that Ms. Parks was arrested for violating the law that said she was in a white section of the bus. Eventually everybody saw the stupidity of those laws and injustice has been reversed. Ch. K violated a "law" that said he couldn't wear his uniform at inappropriate events. He may claim that he is being persecuted for praying in Jesus' name, but that is ultimately not what he was charged with or convicted of. It would have been the equivalent if Parks had been charged with smoking on the bus, rather than sitting in the wrong section. (Of course that was probably still legal then, but you get the point.) If Ch. K had done something otherwise permissible and prayed in Jesus' name, then we could focus on the prayer. But because he committed other "illegal acts," they have detracted from the point he was trying to make. The truth is, he probably would have been punished even if he hadn't said a word because of his attendance in uniform. (We must also remember that he chose a court martial; the administrative punishment he would otherwise have received would have been far less severe.)

I fear that by his own vociferous complaints that he's "been convicted of praying in Jesus' name" that people will start to believe he's right. Then when I go out and pray in Jesus' name (which I can legally do), people will think of "that Navy guy that got court-martialed" for doing it and they'll prevent me from doing so. Their wrong impressions—and potentially my religious restriction—will be caused by Ch K's own words.

He's probably right, too, that this will be used against him to eventually get him out of the Navy. But the reason will be the cumulative effect of the thorn he's been in their side, not any one instance. I'll give them that—the man can sometimes be annoying. That's not exactly the trait you want thought of you if you're trying to convince someone of your cause. If you've ever listened to his audio file on his website in which he was "served" his court martial notification, he was quite insubordinate with an officer that significantly outranked him. Though non-military people might not see the brazenness of his words, I was actually appalled when I heard it (not to mention the fact he was apparently wired). His views have tended to be sensationalized and sometimes misleading. There are times when it seems he values his publicity a little too much.

As to why Jesus was outlawed in 2006, I think that the source of that idea was the American culture. The military, by and large, is a reflection of the culture it represents. Over the past few years we have become increasingly secular. Prayer is more offensive than profanity, and your truth is as good as mine, and I'm not permitted to criticize it. Want to change the military? Probably need to look at American society first.

Ch K absolutely has the right idea, in my opinion. We should fight the unconstitutional religious restrictions on military members' religious expression. But we should do so within the correct channels and by appropriate means. Otherwise we risk only drawing attention to ourselves or detracting from our own goals.

I wholeheartedly believe the restriction of religious expression in the military needs to be resisted. Chaplains should be able to go "all religious," because that's their job. It's no more offensive for a Christian chaplain to pray in Jesus' name than it is for a Jewish one to say Yahweh or a Muslim to say Allah. I just think Ch K has gone about it the wrong way; he may have done more harm than good.

Doug,

Thank you for another response which was rational in tone and thought.

You are correct that I cannot be public about this. I am providing information gained in my official capacity, but speaking about it in my personal. Nothing I have provided was improper for me to provide, but it would be improper for me to reveal what my position is.

You can use the Rosa Parks example if you wish, but it is incorrect and dishonors her. She never tried to deny that she violated the law. She admitted it freely. She argued that the law was unjust and if she was going to punished for violating an unjust law, then so be it. She fought the law, not the violation of law.

LT K, in contrast, tried to have it both ways. On the one hand, he wanted to say he was violating Navy policy and the order he had been given, but when it came time to face the punishment, he tried to argue that he had not violated the order because the order had been modified, that he had not “deliberately engaged the media,” that all he did was pray. LT K is a coward. Rosa Parks was brave.

The other aspect of your comparison between Rosa Parks and LT K that is incorrect is that LT K was not charged with violating the policy he was protesting. He violated his commanding officer’s order to not make a media appearance while in uniform. The content of his speech did not matter, it was the fact that he made a media appearance while in uniform.

LT K’s behavior in this matter should be held against him by those who support him and those who do not. His way of violating the order of his commanding officer and his response after having done so too cute by half, as they say, and was a poorly thought out attempt to get publicity for having violating the order while trying to escape accountability for having done so. This makes him a coward in my book. If he really wanted to protest the policy and draw attention to what he referred to as his “cause,” then he should have simply accepted offers to pray at command functions and then consistently ended his prayers in Jesus’ name. This way, he was violating the policy and inviting his superiors to punish him for having done so.

Instead, craving media attention, he wanted to constantly appear in the media, while in uniform, to protest the policy. He also wanted to escape accountability for having done so. Rosa Parks never tried to escape accountability.

LT K’s attempts to “shed light on a policy that Lt. K does and, as you noted, has for quite some time disagreed with” were working whether he was in uniform or not. He was drawing attention to his “cause” by his website, media appearances (not in uniform), his hunger strike and his multitude of activities. He did not need to violate his CO’s order to draw additional attention to himself and his “cause.” But he did, and when he did, he tried to escape accountability.
He was constantly crying out for his “day in court,” and when presented with that opportunity, he did nothing except use his lawyer and smoke and mirrors to escape accountability. It did not work for him.

I am trying, but I don’t get your point when you state:

“On this last point, I would note that I don't see this as much a deal as when someone signs up for the military and then balks when asked to fight. Lt. K is willing to do his duty and follow orders under the vast majority of situations. He is balking when he's held back by the military, not when he's sent to do his duty. Just wanted to deal with that potential parallel.”

So you know, LT K is not necessarily willing to “follow orders under the vast majority of situations.” He has been extremely insubordinate throughout most of his career as a chaplain. He has failed on numerous occasions to follow his chain-of-command. He uses government resources paid for with your tax dollars to fight his cause by working on his website while on duty, using government computers to do so, and using government copiers and fax machines. He violated the military judge’s order to not further disseminate information he obtained through the discovery process during court-martial. He is disrespectful of superiors throughout his chain-of-command. A service member does not get to pick and choose which orders and regulations they are going to follow. At least not without facing the consequences for having done so.

My discussion about freedom from religion means freedom from religion in a government setting. You may disagree with this, but it is tied up in the separation of church and state. I did not mean to imply that citizens, in their private capacity, are free to speak as they wish, with certain limitations based on time, manner and place. But the government is not free to press religion of any sort upon me.

I will disagree with you when you state “The vast majority of the Founding Fathers saw religion to be essential to a free people.” I think the Founding Fathers saw the freedom to pursue one’s religion to be essential to a free people. Your way is closer to the government imposing religion on its citizens. You are correct when you state “the First Amendment was written to allow free religious speech,” but you leave out the fact that it was also written to prevent a religion from being imposed upon its citizens. At the time of the writing of the First Amendment, there were colonies that had an “official religion.” The Framers thought this was not proper and wrote the First Amendment to protect against that.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about private citizens writes in their personal capacity. It is when a government official is doing something in their official capacity where I would disagree with you. Do you truly want the government to do things that further just your rights as a Christian without doing the same for other religions as well as those who are not religious at all? If they can do this for you as a Christian today, they can take it away from you as a Christian tomorrow and substitute something else. Do you really want to impose your beliefs on others? And if you do, do you want the government backing you in that effort? If you do, then run the risk of losing the very freedoms you are seeking to protect.

JD,

Thanks for your post. You and I agree all the way until you state:

“As to why Jesus was outlawed in 2006, I think that the source of that idea was the American culture. The military, by and large, is a reflection of the culture it represents. Over the past few years we have become increasingly secular. Prayer is more offensive than profanity, and your truth is as good as mine, and I'm not permitted to criticize it. Want to change the military? Probably need to look at American society first.
Ch K absolutely has the right idea, in my opinion. We should fight the unconstitutional religious restrictions on military members' religious expression. But we should do so within the correct channels and by appropriate means. Otherwise we risk only drawing attention to ourselves or detracting from our own goals.
I wholeheartedly believe the restriction of religious expression in the military needs to be resisted. Chaplains should be able to go "all religious," because that's their job. It's no more offensive for a Christian chaplain to pray in Jesus' name than it is for a Jewish one to say Yahweh or a Muslim to say Allah. I just think Ch K has gone about it the wrong way; he may have done more harm than good.”
I have not read the AF policy, but the in no way does the Navy policy outlaw Jesus. I would hazard a guess that it doesn’t in the AF either. No one has stated that prayer is more offensive than profanity. Prayer might be offensive to some in the wrong setting, no matter how it is offered. Why do we have prayers at official functions outside of divine services? I believe the policy is designed to help continue that tradition which the vast majority of folks have no problem with. However, our services have a very diverse group of people in them. They come from all walks of life and religions, or lack thereof. Jesus will offend some and bring joy to others. The same holds true for Yahweh or Allah. That is why the policy asks that prayers merely be offered to God. Does this potentially offend agnostics and atheists? Probably. And they have a right in these official government settings to not be offended. Particularly when it is mandatory for them to attend such an event. However, to date, there has not been much in the way of protesting the tradition of offering non-sectarian prayers at such events.

I am a Christian and not offended when someone simply offers a prayer to God. I will admit that I do not know the doctrinal positions of all Christian denominations, but can you point out one that requires its pastors to end prayers in Jesus’ name? I know LT K’s does not.

Can you tell me why you believe it is an “unconstitutional religious restriction on military members’ religious expression” to have a policy that prayers be inclusive and non-sectarian when offered at an official command function? No one is asking that this be the case in a worship service. No one restricts you from praying in Jesus’ name in private, at a prayer meeting, while in the dining hall or in worship service.

I think, by seeking the freedom to pray as one wants at a command function, we risk losing the ability to offer any prayer there at all.

Anon-

When I said that bit about outlawing Jesus, I was dismissively using someone else's words. I don't believe Jesus is outlawed in either Navy or AF policy. I do think that American society has been leaning in that direction the past few years.

I also realize no one has said prayer is more offensive than profanity; those were my words. They are my assessment (opinion) of modern American culture's reaction to the two (not the military's).

To answer your question about the my assertion of the "unconstitutional religious restriction on military members' religious expression" in the policy that prayers be inclusive and non-sectarian when offered at an official command function: The policy that "insists prayers be offered only to God" rather than a specific deity is not the tolerant policy that people think it is. The tolerant policy is to let the Rabbi pray to Yahweh, let the Imam pray to Allah, and let the Christian pray to Jesus (and let the Wiccan pray to Mother Earth, for that matter). That is what the Constitution envisioned "free exercise" was. When a policy restricts how a person may pray, it dictates the actions of their religion, which is inconsistent with free exercise. True, certain constitutional freedoms may legitimately be restricted in the military, but I don't really see the military necessity of such a policy.

In a strictly military setting, the argument about mandatory functions is valid. At a mandatory function, I should not be required to hear someone sermonize on any religion. But that doesn't mean I can't sit quietly while they pray. Obviously, it is a fine line to follow. Thus the controversy.

I disagree with the assertion that people have a right not to be offended. I believe that is a modern misinterpretation of "tolerance," and goes back to my original quote that facetiously said "your truth is as good as mine, and I can't criticize it." There is no constitutional freedom from offense. In fact, in its protection of even the smallest minority's rights, the Constitution virtually guarantees that every person will be offended at some point. That is the essence of a free society. I am allowed to exercise my rights until they impinge on yours...and you have no Constitutional right not to be offended.

No denomination, nor the Bible, requires the use of Jesus' name in prayer (though the benefits of it are explicit in the New Testament). I think Christians who demand that they be allowed to are probably alienating themselves in the process. It would have been better if we had made an equally acceptable prayer to "God" and avoided the controversy. The "I have to pray to Jesus" thing is probably misunderstood, as well as detrimental to Christianity as a whole.

You said that "by seeking the freedom to pray as one wants at a command function, we risk losing the ability to offer any prayer there at all." I think you may be prescient. Prayer is an inherently religious exercise. To pray without invoking a deity is a contradiction. I suspect that an "all or none" philosophy will appear, and that "none" will probably prevail. It is unfortunate that Christians may have brought some of this on ourselves.

JD,

I think we are mostly in agreement at this point. The Navy’s policy about prayers being non-sectarian and inclusive at command functions does not prohibit anything, but it does suggest being inclusive. Being inclusive in this instance has been interpreted that it is okay to pray to God, to pray to an All Mighty, and similar less specific terms. I think this fits what you are talking about.

I still beg to differ about a right not to be offended when it comes to religion in a government setting (outside of a divine worship service). While attending a government event supported by tax payer dollars, I do have a right to not be offended by something religious offered by someone in an official capacity during the event.

The military offering prayers in a non-worship setting is already skirting a thin line, but it is a long standing tradition. I do not mind the tradition as long as it is done in as inclusive a manner as possible. However, I wear a uniform to help guarantee the rights of the atheists and agnostics who might be seated next to me.

I have enjoyed our discussion. Take care.