Comments for: “A Matter Of Honor: The Truth Comes Out About Former Chaplain Klingenschmitt”

“Despite this insubordination, is being feted by the Religious Right.”

You left the subject out of the sentence, but I think you meant the former chaplain. It’s easy to use the general term “the Religious Right” because it can encompass so many without substantiation. I think you’ll find, however, that most of the “religious right” have been silent on the former chaplain (or even as critical as you are) because most, like you, disagree with his conduct. The fact that he has a couple of advocates does not make him any kind of representative of any conservative-minded group.

By taking a couple of people and making them pillars of your opposition (rather than the “mavericks” they are), you detract from an otherwise well-written article.

With due respect for Chaplain Holcomb’s position as my former supervisor, he must admit he never had religious authority over my prayers and sermons (as he wished to have), nor did he have authority to scream and yell threats of workplace harassment at his subordinates, as he did in this audio recording:
http://persuade.tv/frenzy3/ChaplainGetsServed.wma

Nor could he lawfully forbid me to pray publicly, even in uniform. (Isn’t worshipping in public an INALIENABLE right?) But that’s exactly what he did, as proven by this Navy court-martial judge’s ruling, that my act of “public worship” was only safe inside of Sunday chapel, but “worshipping in public” could be punished as a misdemeanor crime, if my prayers were offered in uniform outside of Sunday chapel. Read page 3 of the judge’s ruling here:
http://persuade.tv/frenzy6/Klingordrule.pdf

This ruling by the court-martial judge proves the Navy dared to enforce their illegal prayer policy against me (SECNAVINST 1730.7C), just as I dared them to do, causing such public outrage that Congress quickly rescinded that policy, just as I hoped they would do, (largely because of the publicity generated by my case), responding to 85% of the American people who agreed with me, that commanders cannot enforce “non-sectarian” prayer content, nor can they restrict “Jesus” to the Sunday chapel, as Chaplain Holcomb did.
Read poll here:
http://persuade.tv/Frenzy6/DecaturDaily17Sep06.pdf

Sadly, Rob Boston reveals AU’s true agenda: to abolish the church at the hands of the state, chasing those who preach Jesus Christ, using the government’s powerful sword. Why doesn’t he instead defend the 68 chaplains suing the Navy, punished for their prayers and sermons? Has AU now become the enemy of free religious expression? And Rob, why didn’t you return my emails, faxes, and phone calls? I invited you to open dialogue, but instead you attack me with anti-Christian rhetoric. Is that a wise strategy, considering Jesus will judge all of us, very soon?

Jesus said, “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.” Luke 9:26 (NIV)

I’m not ashamed.
I pray in Jesus name.
Rev. Gordon James Klingenschmitt

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and chairman of the House conference committee on the Bill of Rights, had this to say about Congressional and military chaplains:

“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative …. The establishment of the chaplainship of Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles …. Better also to disarm, in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.”

Notwithstanding Congress’s thirst for religion and the Supreme Court’s unfaithfully upholding the constitutionality of chaplainships, it was the original intent of the Founding Father who shepherded the First Amendment through Congress that chaplainships where not a permissible government activity.

To the extent that Gordon Klingenschmitt was ever a chaplain in the Navy is an example of the failure of the checks and balances in our federal system and the imposition of tyranny of the majority.

Bob Ritter
Founder,
Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty

Ah, Mr. Klingenschmitt, you disobeyed a direct lawful order from your authorized superior. That gets you disciplined. When you repeatedly defy the lawful authority of a superior officer — which by the way YOU SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD — you deserve to be court-martialed and tossed out of the Navy.

Of course Rob Boston won’t return calls, faxes, emails, carrier pigeons, or whatever other communications you’ve tried with him. He has better things to do than indulge a self-pitying whiner who tries to play the Religious Martyr card.

It also doesn’t “prove” Americans United has that agenda which you outright lie about in claiming they have. It only shows that the self-absorbed arrogance for which you were so rightfully discharged hasn’t abated. Telling lies in the name of the Lord won’t win you any points at the Pearly Gates.

How disgraceful. Were you part of a Catholic religious order, by now your superiors would have silenced you and ordered you to contemplate the error of your most un-Christlike words and actions.

P.S. My deep thanks, Rob, for exposing this self-righteous nonsense.

Mr. Klingenschmitt acted like a child who holds his breath and throws a temper tantrum in an attempt to get his own way. When he found that he couldn’t bully and intimidate a senior Navy Captain he whined and complained that he had been harassed. Mr. Klingenschmitt’s (hereinafter referred to as Mr. K) secret taping of me tells more about his character than about mine. He, of course, orchestrated the entire scene to provoke some public sympathy for himself. The context of the encounter was this: I was not involved in the process of Mr. Ks being notified of his court martial charges. The legal officer notifying him came to my office and asked for my assistance because Mr. K became belligerent and non-compliant. I went to Mr. Ks office where he was being notified and I asked the legal officer what she needed from me. She wanted me to verify that Mr. K was being notified of his charges. As I tried to speak with the legal officer, Mr. K continued to be argumentative, and in terms of military protocol he showed disrespect to senior officers. Also, there was no requirement and no need for the Command Equal Opportunity Officer (CMEO) to be present. In his typical insubordinate fashion Mr. K presumed to overstep his rank status of LT (O-3) and proceeded to tell a CAPT (O-6) what he should do. His disrespect and insubordination raised the encounter to a military point of rank and discipline and I raised my voice and directed him to go see his lawyer who had already been appointed to represent him and who already knew that Mr. K was being notified of his charges. I did not threaten Mr. K as he alleges. I assure you that I meant exactly what I said and I would have charged him with insubordination under the Uniform Code of Military Justice should he have persisted in his disrespect. His own tape substantiates his disrespect and insubordination and would have provided ample evidence against him should I have charged him. It is unfortunate that Mr. K was so lacking in respect for military discipline that he acted like an unruly recruit who was not yet acquainted with military protocol. I did not know that he was secretly taping me but that is of no importance to me. It had become common knowledge that he secretly taped everybody. Military people listening to his tape find his insubordination appalling and point out that it is a sad day when an officer is so disrespectful that he has to be dealt with as though he were a new recruit. Also, I notice that Mr. K uses the plural “subordinates” in his statement “nor did he (Chaplain Holcomb) have authority to scream and yell threats of workplace harassment at his subordinates, as he did in this audio recording.” Mr. K, who are the “subordinates” other than yourself to which you refer? I am confident that a person by person survey of those working for me in my Department will exclude all of them from your alleged “subordinates.” And, if we should want to seek information from the subordinates in my Department I am not sure that you would want me to publicly list the complaints they lodged against you and some of your unethical actions during the time you were associated with my other “subordinates.” Shall I tell about those enlisted people who, seing your conduct, told me that if that was what being a Christian was all about then they wanted none of it? Great personal witness! Shall I list the Commanding Officers and Officers in Charge who complained of your tactics and told me that they would no longer send their personnel for counseling and advice unless we provided a chaplain other than you for that service? Shall I list the complaints I received because you did not know how to handle a Casualty Assistance death call? Shall I mention that at the death of a Navy Chief that the Officer in Charge of the Chief, when she learned that you were the Duty Chaplain, called and said that they would rather not have a chaplain respond to the death if you were the only chaplain available to provide the service? Shall I mention that worshipers at the Protestant Sunday Service asked me to notify them ahead of time if you were going to conduct the service because they did not want to be present if you preached? For many months, as I hoped against hope that you would permit yourself to be mentored and taught how to be a Navy Chaplain, I was too kind to tell you about the negative reputation you were developing. I knew that you had no pastoral experience and that you were a junior LT and a novice chaplain and I hoped that I could help you. You were aware of the fact that I wanted to help you and I noticed in one of the investigations against another officer that you referred to me as “actually, a very nice man.” I appreciated your intelligence and your energy and said so on many occasions. However, it seemed that every time I tried to help you, you found some way to twist the truth or “stick your finger in my eye.” It think it is a very telling fact to consider that you have initiated investigations on every senior officer with whom you have been associated since arriving at the Basic Chaplains School. And, as the record shows, not a single investigation has substantiated any of your claims and they have all been dismissed - 3 against me, I believe. It reminds me of the old joke about the father who attended his son’s graduation from Navy Boot Camp. As the battalion marched across the parade field they were in perfect unison with the exception of one recruit. Upon seeing this the father exclaimed, “They are all out of step except my son!” Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that worshiping in public is an inalienable right. However, the care, keeping and wearing of the naval uniform is not an inalienable right. (If a civilian appears in uniform wearing rank, insignias, ribbons, etc. he/she is breaking the law and can be charged because they have no inalienable right to wear the uniform.) The wearing of the uniform is governed by instructions and regulations that we all swear to uphold. You violated those regulations and you were held accountable just as any of us would be held accountable. Also, this was no misunderstanding or oversight on your part because you were counseled on the regulations regarding the wearing of the uniform. Your act was one of open defiance and disobedience. Your rhetoric about “public worship” and “worshiping in public” is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the issue and you know it. You told me on more than one occasion that your intent was always to create this kind of public furor and draw attention to yourself. Do you remember telling me that if you were arrested and put in jail in Washington, D.C. that it would be great because you would write a book, sell the rights to the movies and make a millioin dollars and never work again? I always found it strange that when you prayed or preached at the chapel that you never wore your uniform. However, given an environment where you could provoke conflict you insisted on wearing a uniform. Mr. K, the uniform belonged to you only as long as you wore it under the guidelines set forth by the institution that extended you the privilege to wear it. Whatever other “inalienable rights” that we all may have, wearing the naval uniform is not one of them. Again, you are correct that I never had religious authority over your prayers and sermons. However, you are not only incorrect - as a matter of fact you are a liar if you insist that I “wished to have” authority over your prayers and sermons. You prove the point and that is that no one ever tried to control or edit your prayers. Even our Commanding Officer, whom you have unjustly maligned, heard you pray at a retirement ceremony and said, “I don’t have a problem with that prayer” (and you had prayed in uniform, in Jesus’ name). Your continued reference to SECNAVINST 1730.7C is superfluous. You were just as guilty of disobeying a lawful order under 1730.7B as you were under 1730.7C. And again, you say that I, Chaplain Holcomb, restricted “Jesus to the Sunday Chapel.” On this count Mr. K, and I can’t say it forcefully enough, I call you a liar. I have been a minister of the Gospel for 37 years - as many years as you have been alive in this world. I am a born again, evangelical Christian minister who has served my Lord Jesus for all these years. I have never been ashamed of the Gospel and I have publicly proclaimed the Gospel during my civilian ministry, my ministry as a Navy Chaplain, and I will continue to do so during my soon-approaching retirement. You, Mr. K, have a problem with truth and facts. Perhaps this will help you achieve your goal of becoming rich and famous (as you have often suggested to me, but I have not yet made that public). You refer to the 68 chaplains who have lawsuits against the Navy. I know some of them and they are fine men of God. They pre-date you and their complaints are not identical to your complaints. You twist that fact so that you, a johnny-come-lately, can piggy-back on their efforts and accrue some credibility to your bankrupt allegations. And by the way, the stories are still coming in from the Kentucky legislators. There is that story about a little church that sent you $1,000.00 because you said that you were homeless, had lost your car and didn’t have a job. Imagine their embarrassment when at the time you made those claims you were getting $1,600.00 a month tax free housing allowance, continuing to get your Navy salary without having to work because you had no credentials to serve as a Navy Chaplain, driving your car to the Base to check in every day, and you knew that you would receive a severance check of almost $100,000.00 before taxes. I have been told by their pastor that it hurt them terribly to learn of this after they had responded to your pleas with a $1,000.00 gift. I’m sure there are other stories like this. Time will tell and the public will be informed. I guess it’s a “nice touch” for you to close your remarks by quoting Scripture. I am reminded that Satan also quoted Scripture to prove his point at our Lord’s temptation. Shakespeare pointed out that “even the devil can quote Scripture to suit his cause.” As you seek fame and fortune, here is a verse for your consideration: “What is desired in a man is loyalty, and a poor man is better than a liar” (Proverbs 19:22).

I’m certain Chaplain Holcomb feels better now, having relieved any post-traumatic stress I’ve personally caused him, by writing an 1800+ word essay. If the editors will permit me a shorter response, his concerns, if legitimate, certainly deserve to be addressed.

First please sir, accept my sincere personal apology for disappointing you so greatly. I have not shown you as much public respect as you certainly deserve for your years of service.

Yet many of your “facts” are incorrect, as I can easily prove.

1. The tape recorder when you shouted threats wasn’t hidden, it was held up to your face, while you were screaming at me in a public hallway, as you well know, since I emailed a copy of that same recording to you the very next day. Are you now fibbing about this, claiming it was secretly recorded, claiming you’re now suddenly surprised? (Everybody, listen to the clip here:
http://persuade.tv/frenzy3/ChaplainGetsServed.wma )

2. I had to record you, as protection against falsehood. For example, another recording of your voice (which I emailed to your deputy, and he can verify word for word, totally unedited) proves that you made false statements (under oath) on the witness stand during my court martial. Specifically, you were asked by my lawyer (Q) and you answered (A):

[START TRANSCRIPT]
Q. Chaplain Holcomb, on 29 March, when you had this conversation with Lieutenant Klingenschmitt, are you aware that that conversation was recorded?

A. I had been told later that it may be–possibly was recorded.

Q. All right. And would it be fair to say that if there was a recording of that event that would be good evidence as to what was said or what was not said during that discussion?

A. It would be fair to say that if there were a recording that says anything other than I’ve testified, it’s not true.

Q. All right. So, your word is better than the–the actual recording?

A. It would be fair to say that if there were a recording that says anything other than I’ve testified, it’s not true.

Q. All right. So, your word is better than the–the actual recording?

[...]

Q. Isn’t it true that you never mentioned the Commanding Officer during that conversation?

A. No, it is not true.

Q. Isn’t it true that there was never any mention of the words “protest rally” during that conversation?

A. No, that is not true. [END TRANSCRIPT]

Ha! The unedited version of THAT tape recording, proves that you perjured yourself under oath twice, since truthfully on 29 Mar 06 you never mentioned the Commanding Officer, nor did anyone of us discuss any “protest rally” as you falsely told the jury, to send me down the river and save your own skin. Hast not thou read the commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness?”

3. I have (since you ask) spoken with other unnamed subordinates, who in confidence have complained to me of your rough nature and abuse of authority. You often point to your “eagles” and bark orders as if you held command, and you admit even your wife has complained of your temper, for which you once apologized to me. Are you now retracting your once sincere apology? You had once admitted you crossed the line by yelling at me that day.

4. Of all these “new” allegations about my misconduct, surprise, none were ever documented against me. My performance in preaching, counseling, ceremonial duties, volunteering, and Casualty Assistance was exemplary, as stated in my fitreps. You only downgraded my “off-duty” performance, because you didn’t like my web-site and complaints to Congress exposing others’ punishment of my faith. And so your reprisals began, with support from your command, now 37 total reported to Congress.

5. When you suggest that 3 of my charges against you (and others) were unsubstantiated and dropped (it’s actually 5), you forgot to mention that 32 others were never investigated, all swept under the rug to hide your sins, allowing you to retire with your multi-million dollar pension (as you often bragged about the size of your portfolio and real estate holdings), while I am persecuted and left jobless for praying in Jesus name. You falsely claim I was never told to stop praying “in Jesus name” but you know full well the Chief of Navy Chaplains Lou Iasiello (whom you protect and defend) told me in writing that praying “in Jesus name” actually “denigrates other faiths” and so I should stop. Read here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoli.....chmitt.pdf

6. Contrast your personal millions to the “blood money” severance pay offered me, a matter of public record I’ve never hidden, but earned because of my “honorable” discharge after 15.5 years of service, (yet far less than the $100,000 you claim, after deducting taxes, tithes, legal expenses, lost health care and dental care, lost tuition, and yes I’m still trying to find a permanent house to live in, after you had me evicted from my home, and zero retirement benefits, but you think I’m wealthy). And no, I don’t have any “big book deal and screenplay,” as you imagine, but thanks for the suggestion, I’ll keep begging for a job to feed my family. Still your blood money severance was less than 10% of the pension I would’ve received for 20+ years honorable service, had I not chosen the higher honor of standing up for Jesus Christ, who is worth more to me than all your millions. If I wanted money or rank, I never would’ve volunteered for a demotion and pay cut, just to become a Navy chaplain in the first place. So you can keep your stinking money. I only want my uniform back, and to serve my country honorably, and to pray publicly “in Jesus name,” far more precious to me, but stolen by your presumptious claim of absolute religious authority.

7. You cannot truthfully claim that “worshipping in public” is an inalienable right, while simultaneously arguing that I forfeit that right the moment I put on a uniform. How suddenly “alienable” that right became for me, under your supervision. You never protected my rights. You quote no regulations, but have repeatedly violated my rights under Naval Uniform Regulation 6405: “CHAPLAINS. Chaplains have the option of wearing their uniform when conducting worship services and during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to their faith groups.” Do I, or don’t I, have the right to pray publicly in uniform? You cannot answer; even today your answer contradicts itself.

8. My “rhetoric” about “public worship” and “worshipping in public” is not mine, it’s a direct quote from the court-martial judge, who ruled that “worshipping in public” is not safe outside of Sunday chapel on 30 Mar 06, exactly quoting 1730.7C enacted on 21 Feb 06 (which has now been rescinded by Congress), when you know full well that the preceding (and now reinstated) 1730.7B never had such narrow definition of “public worship.” For 231 years, (and now again, thank God), the law permitted chaplains to “worship in public” freely everywhere, 7 days a week, even in front of the White House, just like I did on 7 Jan 06, with total freedom, six weeks BEFORE 1730.7C was signed, when 1730.7B was still in effect. If you really believe I was restricted under 7B, why didn’t you (or anybody) try to punish me on 7 Jan 06? No, I was only punished under 7C, just as I dared the Navy to enforce, and they did, to their shame, enraging Congress enough to rescind the 7C policy, as I planned, and repeatedly told you was my only goal.

9. You also know full well the commander gave me written permission to pray in uniform, admitting on 6 Jan 06 that naval uniform regulations, “permit a member of the naval service to wear his or her uniform, without obtaining authorization in advance, incident to attending or participating in a bona fide religious service or observance.” So I was authorized on 7 Jan 06, but later, after SECNAVINST 1730.7C redefined prayers as “not a religious observance,” the new regulations essentially banned praying outside of Sunday chapel. So on 30 Mar 06 I gladly sacrificed my career to expose that bad policy, and to your shame you enforced it, to punish a junior chaplain for praying in uniform, forsaking your oath to support and defend the Constitution.

10. With regard to the courageous Kentucky legislators, who rightly stood with me after you evicted me from my home, (which is easily proven by the EVICTION LETTER at this web-site: http://persuade.tv/Frenzy8/EvictionLetter.pdf ),
I have never deceived them, since I certainly have lost my job, and I have lost a million dollar pension, (although I’m confused by your allegations about the car, since I’ve never claimed to lose a car), and I have lost my home. But I will gladly refund any donation given to my non-profit (from which I’ve never received one penny—it’s been 100% used for charitable work), if any donors are not satisfied they may contact me personally for a full and prompt refund. I’m returning the $1000 to the Kentucky church, since you say they complained to you (without calling me), after so quickly believing your fiction.

11. Your own testimony proves I don’t lie, especially when I say “you wished to have authority” over my sermons and prayers. Even today you admit personally criticizing my sermons, by now claiming that “others complained” about them, so that’s why you took me off the preaching rotation for 8+ months? And you certainly didn’t want me praying in uniform, as you told me privately, “do you think you can just put on a uniform and walk down to the park and start preaching Jesus Christ? You can’t do that in the Navy.” By whose authority did YOU prohibit me from praying and preaching in uniform outside of chapel? By men’s authority, or by God’s?

12. In Acts 4: 18-20 the Sanhedrin “called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.’” You side with the Pharisees and complain of insubordination in religious matters. But you judge for yourself, whether I should obey God, or you. I’ve taken my stand. I’ve paid the price for serving Jesus. I still bear your bootmark on my neck. But may the LORD judge between me and you, to decide who deserves wrath, and who deserves reward, in the end.

I beg God’s forgiveness for my sins. And Chaplain Norm Holcomb I beg your forgiveness, here publicly, for how I know I’ve hurt and disappointed you. And I choose to forgive you, even before you ask. God knows I tried to earn your approval. For this and all other known sin I sincerely repent. From now on, I must be satisfied with God’s approval, and I know my conscience is clear. I’ll let you have the last word here. I will not further reply in this forum, but I welcome your emails, and private discussion, without prejudice. I pray God’s highest blessing upon you, and your family, in Jesus name.

I further welcome dialogue with AU leaders, and I thank them personally (yes even you, Rob Boston), for allowing me this opportunity to respond to your criticism. It was truly decent of you to permit me to reply to your blog. In the spirit of open dialogue, I may be contacted through my web-site: http://www.persuade.tv

I pray in Jesus name,
Gordon James Klingenschmitt

JD Says: The fact that he has a couple of advocates does not make him any kind of representative of any conservative-minded group.

The Conservative Christians who are critical of Klingenschmitt really need to speak out and make their voices heard if they don’t want to be identified with him.

As an experiment, I did a web search for his name in the last three months and looked at the first 30 pages to see if I could find any Christian conservative organizations that were critical of him. Of these I could find no web sites that could be easily identified Christian and conservative that were at all critical. In fact, the only critical organization that came up was AU!

There were several objective news stories by “mainstream” news organizations, and several specialized Christian news outlets had relatively sympathetic articles that none-the-less could not be called advocacy. Religion & Ethics Newsweekly had a balanced article including Christians that were critical of him, but none that could be easily identified as “conservative”. The religion news wire, which publishes religious press releases, had only Klingenschmitt’s own release; no other Christian voice on the topic.

The overwhelming impression is that organizations that are Christian and conservative are advocates, and are not critical. Granted it is hard to do a web search for silence on the topic, and it may not be fair, but if Christian conservatives do not want to be associated with this man, then they need to be more vocal in distancing themselves from him and their brethren. In this case, silence is not golden!JD Says: The fact that he has a couple of advocates does not make him any kind of representative of any conservative-minded group.

The Conservative Christians who are critical of Klingenschmitt really need to speak out and make their voices heard if they don’t want to be identified with him.

As an experiment, I did a web search for his name in the last three months and looked at the first 30 pages to see if I could find any Christian conservative organizations that were critical of him. Of these I could find no web sites that could be easily identified Christian and conservative that were at all critical. In fact, the only critical organization that came up was AU!

There were several objective news stories by “mainstream” news organizations, and several specialized Christian news outlets had relatively sympathetic articles that none-the-less could not be called advocacy. Religion & Ethics Newsweekly had a balanced article including Christians that were critical of him, but none that could be easily identified as “conservative”. The religion news wire, which publishes religious press releases, had only Klingenschmitt’s own release; no other Christian voice on the topic.

The overwhelming impression is that organizations that are Christian and conservative are advocates, and are not critical. Granted it is hard to do a web search for silence on the topic, and it may not be fair, but if Christian conservatives do not want to be associated with this man, then they need to be more vocal in distancing themselves from him and their brethren. In this case, silence is not golden!

RE: You cannot truthfully claim that “worshipping in public” is an inalienable right, while simultaneously arguing that I forfeit that right the moment I put on a uniform.

I don’t think that was the issue. I think the issue was attending a political protest in uniform. If you used prayer for political protest purposes, you got what you deserive.

Its was probably the will of God, if you ask me.

I’m a Navy Chaplain and and former Army line officer find Mr Klingenschmitt’s behavior throughout this whole epsiode unseemly. Officers on active duty don’t conduct hunger strikes in front of the White House. They don’t (to use Klingenschmitt’s words) write “excoriating letters” to their service secretary, they don’t say that the Secretary of Defense lied in reference to their case, they don’t appear in uniform at partisan political rallies (the actual charge against Klingenschmitt, not praying in Jesus Name), they don’t make rounds in Congress to gain support for themselves, they don’t smear the reputations of those that oppose them in the media, and while on active duty they don’t engage in a media war against the military. Officers don’t do those things. If they think that they morally have to make that stand they resign and do so as a civilian and don’t try to have it both ways, that is to have all the benefits of the institution while working as hard as possible to promote their agenda within it. I am a conservative both theologically and politically and for the first time in my life find that I agree more with AU and People for the American Way than with conservative leaders and groups who at one time I respected. Officers, even Chaplains do not behave in the manner Klingenschmitt did. This never was about a Chaplain praying “in Jesus’s Name,” it was about the agenda of Gordon Klingenschmitt and his supporters in the religious right. As a chaplain I have been able to pray however I felt the need to, but I was able to do so because my people knew that I first and formost cared about them regardless of thier relionous beliefs, or lack therof. A Chaplain is charged with guarding the right to free exercise rights of his or her people, not forcing his own beliefs on others. Klingenschmitt illegally taped and published Chaplain Holcomb while the charges against him were being read. If one actually listens to the recording one sees that it was not Chaplain Holcomb who was out of line but Klingenschmitt, you don’t record people without their knowledge and then release it itno the public. The continued reference to this incident and others by Klingenschmitt shows just how out of touch he is with reality. Had I been Holcomb at that incident I would have probably recommended to the command that additional charges be filed and that the court martial be moved to a General Court Martial. Klingenschmitt’s behavior and that of the people who I used to think had integrity on the religious right and in “conservative” media have showed me the bankruptcy within the movement. During this past year I have seen allegedly conservative and “Christian” media outlets, bloggers, and religious groups use Klingenschmitt’s cause to raise money for themselves, sensationalize the unsensational and defame honorable people to advance their causes. In fact it appears that Klingenschmitt was merely a tool for them, albiet a willing tool, they used him and most have now abandoned him since there is no more money to be had from him. I used to look past indescretions and scandals of the religious right and attribute them to fringe elements and out of control individuals, but after this and the banality of the support given by alleged conservatives to Klingenschmitt I have done a critical re-evaluation of the movement, and though I am still conservative am cutting my ties to these organizations and am leaving the Republican Party after 31 years to become an independant, even though this means that in my home state I will not be able to vote in primaries. I know a number of other conservative “born again evangelical” chaplains who feel the same way. Klingenschmitt’s continued rantings show that he has lost his way, I feel very bad for his family as he brought this on himself. I’m sure that if Mr Klingenschmitt or or a Klingenschmitt supporter answers that that there will be a long list of citations from his website on why I am wrong and anti-Christian but I expect such accusations from people who have no regard for the truth. Even those that claim to be my Christian brother, but then, maybe they wouldn’t see me as their Christian brother. I expect one day I’ll write a book on the banality of the Christian Right, but right now I still have a lot of work caring for the Navy “flock” that God has given me, people who without fanfare serve their country and the Constitution. God bless Chaplain Holcomb for coming out and speaking out on this issue. Klingenschmitt should try to get on with life and take care of his family, use the severance money given to him by the Navy to finish his doctorate and get a job teaching or pastoring, or even writing. As a naval Officer, Chaplain and Christian I am saddened by this whole affair. The whole lot of Klingenschmitt supporters should be ashamed.

Thank you, Steve, for speaking out. As far as conservative values go, liberty is our country’s foundation, and the very reason why we have a military! As a registered republican, I can relate, but I’m staying in the party in order to have some (if small) influence.

I disagree with Rob Boston’s comment, for two reasons.

First, it appears Chaplain Klingenschmitt actually did care about Sailors of other religions, at least of the Jewish faith, since the Anti-defamation League and Jewish Welfare Board wrote letters to help him. http://persuade.tv/againstgoli.....chmitt.pdf

And second, it appears Americans United really is calling for the punishment of Chaplain Klingenschmitt’s sermons, even at optional Christian worship events. I just read this sermon that (allegedly) got the chaplain fired, and I wonder what’s wrong with it. Wouldn’t Americans United at least defend a chaplain’s right to talk about Jesus inside the chapel? And if not, what preachers and churches are they going to try to punish next? http://persuade.tv/againstgoli.....sFired.pdf

It just seems like they’re pushing an anti-right agenda, without looking at all the facts.

Bruce

Bruce, He wasn’t fired, he was court-martialed. Not for praying, for a crime. The crime was insubordination, disobeying the lawful order of a superior officer. So, basically, the guy is a convicted criminal. Read Steve’s comment above.

Bruce,

It was never about the sermon, there were many other issues and complaints about the man, see his website and the crew comments about him. The sermon is a smoke screen that he hides behind. Read Chaplain Holcomb’s letter, Klingenschmitt ’s website is so full of disinformation and spin and his supporters at certain “conservative” news sites echo him word for word without any critical questions it is amazing. Officers don’t create a media circus every time they run into trouble. All of us who serve have probably had a new A**hole torn by our superviser at one time or another. It is part of life. He talks about being fired, well he was relieved of his shipboard duties and sent ashore, after numerous complaints on the Anzio, however there are quite a few chaplains who have been fired in their career and still stayed in the service, learned from their mistakes and had sucessful careers. Like Alan said, Klingenschmitt is a convicted criminal, he was convicted of disobeying a direct order from his commanding officer not to wear his uniform partisan political events or with the news media. The sad thing is that if Klingenschmitt could have learned to live and minister in the pluralistic environment of the military he could have gotten his retirement, even if he didn’t get promoted to Lieutenant Commander, he only needed a few years to get to the 18 year “sanctuary” for retirement. Instead he decided to go for it all and lost. It was his choice, he didn’t have to get court martialed. He was offered Non-Judicial punishment, or as we call it in the Navy, Captain’s Mast. He refused Captain’s Mast and went for the court martial. He was lucky that the command did not give him a General Court Martial. Had he gotten covicted at the GCM he would have been thrown out with a punitive discharge and no severance pay. He got off lucky and hopefully someone will take him under their wing and help him before he crashes and burns in a civilian pastoral ministry career. I guarantee that your typical Evangelical/Charismatic church that has a congregational form of government would not tolerate a pastor who acted like Klingenschmitt did on the Anzio and vote him out fairly quickly. It really doesn’t come down to his theology, there are a lot of Chaplains from very conservative Fundamental denominations who serve with distinction in the Navy, but they know how to cooperate and work well with others while maintaining their theological and denominational integrity. Klingenschmitt could never find that balance. It’s really too bad.

Steve,
While I’m not trying to defend him, for the sake of accuracy I should point out that Klingenschmitt is not a “convicted criminal.” He was convicted of violating the UCMJ, which is not a law; it is a military regulation. He has no criminal record. To the rest of the civilian world, he is simply another honorably-discharged veteran.

Steve,

I hate spin, just like you do. Yet I’m not naive enough to believe the Navy has their spin too. I want the bottom line truth. So I did a little reading in the Washington Times, which is respected by many, just searching by the word “Klingenschmitt,” and three articles I quickly found there may help me get to the bottom of this. Can you answer four simple “yes” or “no” questions, to eliminate spin?

First, did Klingenschmitt file a whistleblower complaint against the Navy prayer policy, including Chaplain Iasiello, as reported on 23 Mar 06? (Yes or no.) Because it does appear Chaplain Iasiello told him not to pray in Jesus name according to the document cited above, and Klingenschmitt blew the whistle in letters to Congress.
http://www.washingtontimes.com....._page2.htm

Second, did that Navy prayer policy redefine “public worship” in some way? (Yes or no.) The reason I ask, is that Klingenschmitt really was punished for his sermons, as admitted by the Navy spokesman, but that spokesman said that’s “not worship” and so the commander can punish him. Americans United appears to endorse punishing chaplain’s sermons, if they agree with this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com....._page2.htm

Third, did the court-martial judge enforce that same new prayer policy to define “lawfulness” and punish the chaplain? (Yes or no.) Because the judge’s ruling cited above seems to quote that policy, when defining the difference between “public worship” and “worshipping in public.” I’m sure you can appreciate the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful order to avoid “worshipping in public” in uniform, especially if the Navy Uniform regulations protect that, as 6405 is quoted above.
http://persuade.tv/frenzy6/Klingordrule.pdf

Fourth, did the Congress later rescind that same policy, for which Klingenschmitt was punished? (Yes or no.) Because the Washington Times says “Last year, the Senate specifically cited his case when they voted to overturn the Navy’s prayer standards.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....-8904r.htm

Please answer these questions for me. No spin, just yes or no. Thanks.

If the chaplain was punished for disobeying “lawful” orders based on a bad policy that was revoked by Congress, it seems he’s not a criminal after all, and maybe he did sacrifice his career for liberty.

Bonus question: Was Jesus a criminal?

Bruce

Bruce - Why don’t you read the trial transcripts?

He was tried, in public, with legal representation, due process, etc. He has the right to appeal. It could go all the way to the supreme court, if it has merit. Since first amendment rights are privileged, if his were violated I’m sure the supreme court would be interested.

Bonus question - Is Klingenschmitt Christ?

JD - I’m not sure about the “criminal” status. According to several sites, the UCMJ is found in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 of the United States Code. Considering the procedural protections provided it certenly seems to be a criminal statute.

Without adherance to the chain of command and military discipline, the military simply could not function. As Steve said, if you have problems with following orders, it is best to quit the military and find something else to do.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/us.....30_47.html

Bruce - Outside of this particular case, I’d like you to consider the big picture. A chaplin is comissioned into the military to provide a service to the solders and sailors and airmen. He is not there to satisfy his own selfish needs for self-expression. Liberty is not, of course, always compatable with selfless service to others.

A ship isn’t like a town where anyone can set up a store-front church to minister to a particular faith. I bet they only have one chaplin per ship - certinaly not one chaplin per faith. So if a chaplin is to do his job - or, I should say, DUTY, for all of the sailors, he has to SOMETIMES set aside his own personal religious prefrences in order to accomidate those who believe differently. Doing your duty is what the military is all about - not selfish self-expression.

If you just want to be yourself and “do your own thing”, the military isn’t the place for you.

I am far from home, on leave with my grandchildren and this is the first opportunity I have had to view the above comments. Thank you, Mr. Klingenschmitt for permitting me to have the last word. Your response is really nothing less than I expected, During your 2 years at Naval Station Norfolk it became clear to me that you have a problem and I don’t believe that you are able to help yourself. I won’t dignify responding to the unbelievable spin that you generated in your above statement. I wrote the truth and yes, everything I said about your attempts at ministry is well documented. I sincerely hope that you will find the help you need in helping you come to terms with reality. Gordon, it is obvious to almost everyone except yourself that you simply can’t deal honestly with facts. I hope that you will get the help you need, find the profession or occupation that suits you best and get on with your life. Perhaps you could even learn how to be a pastor if you were humble enough to accept guidance and instruction. I accept your apology (forgiveness) for your insubordination and your resistance to the mentoring and guidance that I tried to provide as a senior chaplain in the Navy Chaplain Corps. The matter is ended for me and I have no input into your life as a civilian. However, be assured that since I know the truth about your failed ministry as a Navy Chaplain and I know the truth about your dismissal from active duty, I will speak up and counter any falsehoods and attempts to mislead the public. It was never about praying “in Jesus’ name” and it was never about any sermon that you preached. Your demise was caused by a stubborn pride (hubris) and culminated in prosecution for disobedience of a lawful order.
Norm Holcomb