January 07, 2006
Navy surrenders: Chaplain eatingThe Navy chaplain who has gone without food for 18 days in protest of the Navy's policy encouraging "inclusive" prayers at public events says he has received permission to wear his uniform and pray in Jesus' name outside the White House tomorrow and will end his hunger strike by taking communion there.
Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt had said he would not eat until President Bush signed an executive order allowing chaplains to pray in public according to their individual faith traditions. Later, he said if the Navy would allow him to wear his uniform in public and pray in Jesus' name he would end his fast. Klingenschmitt told WND this evening he has received a letter from his commanding officer giving him permission to do so.
It's a partial victory in a surprise battle by the military against religious freedom for our soldiers. Now, when will President Bush sign an Executive Order to guarantee this religious tolerance and freedom in the military for all? What's the problem?
Posted at 07:30 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.
Besides Woody, what the heck are you doing up at 1:30 in the morning?
Posted by: GM Roper at Saturday, January 07 2006 08:28 PM (0CqNu)
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, January 07 2006 08:54 PM (v5VVJ)
God Bless.
Posted by: Brian Parker at Sunday, January 08 2006 10:35 AM (j5vIv)
Posted by: civil truth at Sunday, January 08 2006 10:57 AM (2eZsU)
For example, chaplains leading open group prayers before meals is not only intrusive, but unnecessary. In that situtation religious tolerance will have taken a hit. On the other hand, if the group prayers and other problem-causing events occur outside of typical miliary events (realizing the difficulty in defining "typical" when refrencing the military, as compared to other workplaces), where participation is optional, then perhaps political correctness has gone overboard - with the caveat that "optional" means that religion enters the military only during downtime or, when downtime simply doesn't exist, in an area specially chosen for religious purposes. Religious references in the military, public schools, and government buildings is not the standard, therefore the option to exercise religious freedom must not be in the form of refraining from over-exposure to the practices of others exercising that freedom.
It's a shame that missing the point has resulted in everyone wasting time by nitpicking at events where religion is normally a nonissue, such as funerals or jewelry. As a government institution, the military does need to tread carefully, especially considering the highly emotional nature of the job. Maybe the best solution really is to minimize the amount of religious references, because the stories in the papers tell more tales of soldiers offended by religion's presence than its supposed oppression. Otherwise this overblown issue that's been deemed a "problem" might never end - should tattoos of crosses be inked over as well? Should a Jew refrain from explaining what it means to be kosher for fear of being chastised (or worse) for supposedly trying to convert? Unfortunately, those on all sides of this ill-defined issue choose the wrong battles and sides are drawn with shaky lines.
Posted by: Andrea at Sunday, January 08 2006 08:02 PM (DSie/)
Posted by: Muslim Army Chaplin at Monday, January 09 2006 05:21 AM (n3nEz)
All faiths also allow any Chaplin to administer last rites to any troop that is dying. This is a time honored tradition that I have observed in a life time of growing up in the military and having a brother who was an Army Chaplin.
Posted by: GM Roper at Monday, January 09 2006 01:01 PM (0CqNu)
Posted by: GM Roper at Monday, January 09 2006 01:03 PM (0CqNu)
Posted by: GM Roper at Monday, January 09 2006 01:05 PM (0CqNu)
Atheists are not the only ones who might be offended by references to Christ, such as non-christians, Christians who prefer to keep their spirituality to themselves, not to mention any one, regardless of religious belief, who simply wants to get the job done without religious involvement.
And of course there are atheist in foxholes... any person who claims to have found religion in an emergency wasn't an atheist to begin with... maybe they're just beginning to get vocal now
Posted by: Andrea at Wednesday, January 11 2006 09:35 AM (xWVQ9)
I've heard Athesists yell out, when angry, injured, flustered etc. "Oh my God." yet, when the stress is down, they are still athesists.
The Atheist in Foxholes is an interesting site, and of course it is true, my comment was directed at the "stress" of the moment and I have seen the "God" word come out of the mouths of Athesists and Agnostics many many times in periods of high stress. Doesn't mean that they stop "being atheist" it means that in periods of high stress, "most" folk turn to the idea of a higher being.
How come it is the Christian that has to always be the tolerant one. Who really, in the fullness of time, in the scope of things, gives a damn about someone being "offended?"
There is no constitutional ban on being offended. I find someone denegrating my faith offensive. Does that give me a right to ask you or anyone else to "shut up." Of course not. I find the idea of illegal combatants in Gitmo, people who either illegally fought us or our allies (from the stand point of being in a legal military organization) being given Koran's highly offensive. Does that mean they can't have them. No, it doesn't because that is not my judgment to make. Do you EQUALLY decry these people being given Koran's with taxpayer dollars offensive? I would really hope so and I'd like to know about the sites where you espouse that idea.
Posted by: gmroper at Wednesday, January 11 2006 01:12 PM (0CqNu)
I'm not really offended, exactly, that Korans are paid for with my tax dollars, it just pisses me off. My tax money shouldn't be supporting any religion. And I don't mind the crucifix above every doorway of my law school, and the humongous 60 foot one in the middle of campus doesn't creep me out as much as I thought it would. I was, however, kind of offended when Congress screamed "under god" while reciting the pledge during that whole fiasco. Mostly I was irritated because it's just not needed! I, for one, definitely care when people are offended, especially with respect to my own actions. Fortunately most people know that I'm not out to get anyone. But if I didn't mean something to be offensive, and despite being careful someone got upset, oh well. Believe me, I know it's a frustrating world.
I wrote that some non-Christians might be offended because the chaplain in question is Christian. Christianity only appears to be under "attack" because recently, religion has been permitted to enter certain public spheres where it normally has never been allowed. So when people oppose that new presence, it's pretty easy for politicians, pundits and so on to cry out that Christians are held to a higher standard. Christians don't have to be any more tolerant than any other group of people. As the religious majority in the country they are certainly not being persecuted, although with all the rhetoric flying around it's as if the numbers are down to half a percent of the American population. Regardless of whether soldiers are are more religious than other groups, those with authority still do not have the right to subtly - even if unintentionally - pressure everyone to join in. Of course someone is offended by every PC move the military makes. My suggestion was simply to cut back on unofficially endorsed religious practices all together. The soldiers who feel pressure to pray in the manner of the majority (or don't want to at all) shouldn't be placed in an uncomfortable position.
Posted by: Andrea at Thursday, January 12 2006 11:49 AM (DSie/)
Posted by: Tricia at Saturday, January 14 2006 05:43 PM (RCcsI)
In Timothy you will also find: "GOD HATH NOT GIVEN US THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; BUT OF POWER, AND OF LOVE, AND OF A SOUND MIND. BE NOT THOU THEREFORE ASHAMED…OF OUR LORD, NOR OF ME-2 Tim 1:7,8."
I think the problem is, and will continue to be, that too many of us, for whatever reason, believe that we have a right not to be "offended." I have no problem attending a public event in which an Imam or a Rabbi leads the prayer in their particular style. What gives them the right to have a problem if I pray in the name of Jesus. And the answer is, nothing. But we assume under the rubric of being politically correct the injunction should have been written "go forth and offend no one, whisper my name so that your enemies will not know you are there."
PC is madness. Pure and simple madness. Rational thought run amok.
Posted by: GM Roper at Sunday, January 15 2006 01:49 AM (0CqNu)
Posted by: Wendy at Thursday, February 02 2006 07:21 AM (xkwm7)
Oh merciful God , our Lord and savior unblind the eyes of those who do not believe, enlighten the eyes of their understanding that they would know you and see the Goodness of You. Bless them to be a blessing, to raise up the name of Jesus
IN Jesus name we pray....Amen
Posted by: Trin at Monday, March 06 2006 08:24 AM (z9jG9)
When this isn't enough to suit your needs, the true religion outlet Clothing folks in addition have a signature spread of his and hers perfume and aftershave, because both versions smell divine and actually are only going to be flying over the shelves anybody realize how good they are. Perhaps this can be a less popular clothing brand but certainly one who deserves to found yourself in the forefront and make spotlight it so deserves, as when you have witnessed the number of beautiful jeans for sale you may be unlikely to ignore the name and are usually preparing to adore owning these special jeans.
Posted by: gytygvg at Tuesday, May 17 2011 03:04 AM (YBGrS)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.








