Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Military Chaplains are being censored.
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 16 of 48 (386402)
02-21-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by anastasia
02-21-2007 10:32 AM


Thats how evangelicals think
You hit the nail on the head, Anastasia! A Strict Evangelical would feel personally offended if they could not pray in Jesus name. I used to be that way, but I now operate quite ecumenically. Many of the people whom I pray with are Roman Catholics, and I am one of the few Protestants whom they approach. In the end, its about relationship and trust rather than ritual.
I would be very offended, however, if the State forbade me from mentioning Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 10:32 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Omnivorous, posted 02-21-2007 2:31 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 9:17 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 21 by jar, posted 02-21-2007 9:22 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 17 of 48 (386405)
02-21-2007 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Taz
02-21-2007 1:31 PM


Re: Church/State separation?
Philosophy is free game---anyone can and does discuss it at any time. I have spent days talking philosophy without ever once bringing up the name of Jesus. As for exclusivity, the State invited us in to be a faith based alternative for people who sought prayer. Muslims, Hindus, and other religious people are equally as welcome as are we....but there are so very few kids of other faiths. 98% of the inmates are either without formal religion, Roman Catholic, or Protestant.
I have talked with kids who professed themselves to be atheists, before. I never push any religion on them...usually I talk about making positive choices and changes in their lives--I keep it quite secular with them. Conversely, the others want to pray and we often do pray in the name of Jesus. I try and be sensitive to the beliefs of others and am much more open minded than most of the other Protestant volunteers.
My point is that if I was forbidden from mentioning Christ, I would take it as an attack on my beliefs. Fortunately, the staff commends me and I have no problems with the State of Colorado.
Edited by Phat, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 1:31 PM Taz has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 18 of 48 (386411)
02-21-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
02-21-2007 1:36 PM


Re: Thats how evangelicals think
Phat writes:
I would be very offended, however, if the State forbade me from mentioning Jesus.
Then you should probably forswear a career as a military chaplain. And if you do pursue that vocation, you should decline to pray at ecumenical events.
The State isn't telling you not to do anything; the Constitution that protects all faiths is telling you what the limits are.
It appears to me that the Bible clearly endorses prayers to God without resort to Jesus' name: an insistence on sectarian forms of prayer at nonexclusively Christian events is an act of spiritual aggression.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 1:36 PM Phat has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 19 of 48 (386447)
02-21-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
02-21-2007 6:07 AM


Military Chaplains are being told not to pray in the name of Jesus.
Your opening remark is, while true, rather incomplete, Phat.
It should read, "military chaplains are being told that they cannot pray in Jesus' name during inter-faith or inter-demoninational services."
The Washington Times link provides a quote that refutes the absoluteness of your opening remark as chaplains are indeed allowed to pray in Jesus's name when performing chapel services and (it doesn't specifically say this in the link, but I think it can be reasonably inferred) when providing one on one ministry to someone who shares their faith.
The issue, as I understand it, is that Klingenschmitt performed a sectarian prayer at a funeral instead of providing an ecumenical service as required of chaplains when performing in a more public ceremony.
Chaplains are advised of the guidelines before they accept their positions and most of them do their jobs as required. If an individual chaplain finds it difficult to perform his or her job because of belief conflicts, then s/he has the option to resign or decline from taking on certain tasks that would conflict with his or her beliefs.
No such restrictions are apparently being given to the Muslim Chaplains concerning Allah.
Of course, neither I nor you are privy to every single service done in the military, but I can say with a pretty high confidence that if a Muslim chaplain presided over a Catholic funeral and invoked Allah, we (or, rather, you) would be having a very different discussion.
It is highly likely that the Muslims and Jews "have yet to be tested" because they actually follow the rules and provide non-sectarian services when necessary and/or decline from presiding over interfaith services if they feel that it goes against their beliefs.
Again, if the sole chaplain on an aircraft carrier was a Muslim and he led the nightly prayers in Allah's name you can be sure we (or, rather, you) would be having a very different conversation. However, I am sure the Muslim chaplain counsels his Islamic charges using the Qu'ran and references to Allah. He may or may not be able to counsel those of other faiths dependent upon his ability to provide general counsel (similar to the way you say you counsel incarcerated atheists), but you can bet that a Christian soldier would protest if his Muslim chaplain prayed to Allah while providing one on one minstry and the chaplain would be disciplined acordingly.
As I see it now, this seems to be just another exaggeration and manipulation of the facts in order to make it seem like some Christian is being unfairly persecuted in order to prop up the fantasy of some kind of "War on Christians" in America.
It simply isn't happening and some evangelical being called on not following the rules and acting in such a way that makes it seem like he wants his religion to be privileged over all others is not tantamount to persecution, no matter what way you try to spin it.
So what does everyone think? Are the evangelical Chaplains pushing it too far?
The ones who are demanding that they be allowed to preside over inter-faith services in a sectarian manner or protesting when they are called out on doing so in such a manner that makes if seem like they are being forbidden from saying Jesus anytime and anywhere and, thus, promoting the fictional War on Christians are indeed pushing it too far.
Should a Chaplain be so watered down and pluralistic that they quench their own faith in the process?
I think you meant squelch, but no matter. A military chaplain accepts the job knowing that s/he has to be available to counsel people from many different faiths and that s/he will have to preside over inter-faith services. If s/he feels that s/he cannot perform an inter-faith service without somehow compromising their faith then s/he should not take the job or resign if the conflict arises after being hired.
No one is asking anyone to deny their faith.
Edited by Jaderis, : changed "WaPo" to Washington Times

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 6:07 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 9:31 PM Jaderis has replied
 Message 28 by Wounded King, posted 02-22-2007 6:44 AM Jaderis has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 20 of 48 (386450)
02-21-2007 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
02-21-2007 1:36 PM


Re: Thats how evangelicals think
Phat writes:
A Strict Evangelical would feel personally offended if they could not pray in Jesus name.
Well, a person could get offended about anything if they have a bone to pick with the world...but it is a slightly different story if a person really doesn't think a prayer 'works' unless you mention Jesus. If a person can't perform public functions because their belief doesn't permit this ecumenical thinking, maybe they should resign?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 1:36 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 48 (386451)
02-21-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
02-21-2007 1:36 PM


Re: Thats how evangelicals think
A Strict Evangelical would feel personally offended if they could not pray in Jesus name. I used to be that way, but I now operate quite ecumenically.
Even though Jesus said that was NOT the way to pray.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 1:36 PM Phat has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 22 of 48 (386454)
02-21-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jaderis
02-21-2007 8:33 PM


Jaderis writes:
The issue, as I understand it, is that Klingenschmitt performed a sectarian prayer at a funeral instead of providing an ecumenical service as required of chaplains when performing in a more public ceremony.
Curious...does the military deceased have a say in what type of funeral he wishes, or was this a formal service aside from a private one?
Of course, neither I nor you are privy to every single service done in the military, but I can say with a pretty high confidence that if a Muslim chaplain presided over a Catholic funeral and invoked Allah, we (or, rather, you) would be having a very different discussion.
I would have no problem at all if a Muslim presided over a memorial service etc, or even if he invoked Allah. But it is a MUCH different discussion indeed as to whether any Muslim can preside over a Catholic funeral. See, usually they involve a mass, and a mass requires a priest, and during the mass there is endless talk about the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and that little episode where He becomes the bread and wine.
It is highly likely that the Muslims and Jews "have yet to be tested" because they actually follow the rules and provide non-sectarian services when necessary and/or decline from presiding over interfaith services if they feel that it goes against their beliefs.
Hey, put Catholics back in there! We are pretty ecumenical people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jaderis, posted 02-21-2007 8:33 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Jaderis, posted 02-21-2007 10:13 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 27 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-22-2007 1:47 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 23 of 48 (386457)
02-21-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Doddy
02-21-2007 8:37 AM


Re: Church/State separation?
What is a government organisation doing with chaplains anyway?! Isn't there a separation of church and state?
The Constitution of the U. S. forbids the establishment of a national religion - so promoting chaplains is encouraging theism. So, I say no chaplains in government organisations, unless there are also atheist philosophers.
I do not agree that providing chaplains at public institutions goes against the Establishment Clause because it fills an individual request for such services.
No one is forced (or is supposed to be forced) to utilize the services of the chaplain. A death row inmate is not forced to have a chaplain come to him before execution (altho I would agree with you that a reasonable alternative be allowed...what that may be would likely vary greatly from person to person).
At military funerals, the chaplain is asked to preside over services in a non-sectarian manner. I would hope that if an atheist died the chaplain would avoid all references to God, but if a Catholic dies, then the God references make sense, but not evangelical prayers. Atheists who attend the funerals of Christians should expect to hear God references, but not be forced to pray, just like when I go to a funeral for a Christian I would expect to hear all kinds of references to God and be asked to pray (but not forced to) and just like I got extremely upset when the lady conducting my atheist brother's funeral decided to take it upon herself to talk about God when we expressly told her not to.
If the chaplain was presiding over an evangelical's funeral, I would even agree that he be allowed to pray in Jesus' name, because that would be in line with the faith of the dead and people attending an evangelical funeral in a civilian setting should expect to hear such references. I'm not sure if this is military policy, tho.
I can kind of see your point that public funds should not be used to promote theism in the form of chaplains and I think they should be limited to individual counseling upon request, funerals and chapel services. The WaPo article mentioned a "nightly closing prayer" and I don't think that should be a part of the chaplain's duties as it promotes theism in the sense that those who don't believe are forced to listen to a sermon/prayer in a general setting (I'm assuming the nightly prayer is broadcast somehow - which is why the issue of fariness came up in the first place - so that all can hear it and if it is offered in a more private setting, then my apologies).
However, I think there is a legitimate public need for religious counseling in the military, in prisons, in hospitals, etc and such a need can be filled without violating the Establishment Clause as long as it is done in a sensitive manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Doddy, posted 02-21-2007 8:37 AM Doddy has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 24 of 48 (386459)
02-21-2007 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by anastasia
02-21-2007 9:31 PM


Curious...does the military deceased have a say in what type of funeral he wishes, or was this a formal service aside from a private one?
I'm not sure what military policy is on this particular point (can anyone help us out?), but I would think that they do and I am assuming that is where some of the conflict comes from in this particular case of Klingenschmitt presiding over a Catholic's funeral and giving an evangelical sermon.
I mentioned in my previous post that I feel that an evangelical sermon (or perhaps an evangelical prayer amidst a more generalized service) is quite apropriate when presiding over an evangelical's funeral and I don't think it should be military policy to disallow that (unless, of course, other soldiers are forced to attend services, which I don't think they are). Similarly, if a Catholic priest was the chaplain of the ship he should be allowed to give Catholic prayers during a Catholic's funeral, but should not be asked to give evangelical prayers during an evangelical's funeral, instead asked to give an ecumenical sermon.
In the case of the Catholic's funeral, Klingenschmitt should have either performed a non-sectarian funeral or should have declined the invitation if he felt he could not do so. I don't believe that a complete Catholic Mass is performed aboard ships (I'm sure the family has their own ceremony once the body is returned to them) and it seems that the service is simply an opportunity for the sailors to mourn their deceased fellow since they won't be able to attend the actual service. The beliefs of the dead should still be respected as much as possible, tho.
I would have no problem at all if a Muslim presided over a memorial service etc
I agree.
or even if he invoked Allah.
As long as he was presding over a Muslim's funeral, I agree.
I do not think that invoking Allah during a Christian's funeral shows respect for the dead, just as invoking Jesus during a Muslim's funeral or invoking any deity during an atheist's funeral does not show respect for the dead.
But it is a MUCH different discussion indeed as to whether any Muslim can preside over a Catholic funeral. See, usually they involve a mass, and a mass requires a priest, and during the mass there is endless talk about the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and that little episode where He becomes the bread and wine.
Agreed, a Muslim or even a non-Catholic should not preside over a Catholic Mass, but we are not talking about a Mass, but a military funeral service made available to sailors/soldiers who are aboard a ship or on a military mission or otherwise unable to attend the actual funeral organized by the family.
I'm not sure if that was made clear before, but I hope it is more clear now.
Hey, put Catholics back in there! We are pretty ecumenical people.
Sorry bout that...I didn't realize that I had left y'all out!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 9:31 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:33 PM Jaderis has replied
 Message 31 by LinearAq, posted 02-22-2007 12:26 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 25 of 48 (386472)
02-21-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jaderis
02-21-2007 10:13 PM


You seem like a very reasonable person and I agree very much with your thoughts. Only one comment comes to mind;
Jaderis writes:
I do not think that invoking Allah during a Christian's funeral shows respect for the dead, just as invoking Jesus during a Muslim's funeral or invoking any deity during an atheist's funeral does not show respect for the dead.
That is a good point, if you know that a person had strong feelings about something, it would be respectful to honor those feelings in a service for that person. What I meant was much more generalized, no pun intended, but if a devout Muslim saw fit to pray for me, and did so in the words s/he knew best, and even gave me the honor of their heartfelt prayer, I would be obliged to appreciate. I guess it depends on the intentions.
And that is a point too...I think the evangelicals should look at the intentions, which are good, and feel confident that a good intention is all that God really requires in prayer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jaderis, posted 02-21-2007 10:13 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jaderis, posted 02-22-2007 12:52 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 26 of 48 (386482)
02-22-2007 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by anastasia
02-21-2007 11:33 PM


That is a good point, if you know that a person had strong feelings about something, it would be respectful to honor those feelings in a service for that person. What I meant was much more generalized, no pun intended, but if a devout Muslim saw fit to pray for me, and did so in the words s/he knew best, and even gave me the honor of their heartfelt prayer, I would be obliged to appreciate. I guess it depends on the intentions.
Quite agreed
Despite my own professed disbelief in any supernatural deity, I am not offended if someone prays for me (unless of course they are praying for something I do not wish to happen, like, say turning me straight...I find prayers like that to be quite condescending) and I do appreciate good thoughts/prayers from anyone no matter who or what they are invoking, if anything.
However, we should not assume an obligation of appreciation on someone who can no longer be asked.
You also make a very good point about intentions. No one (except himself) knows for sure what Klingenschmitt's intentions were/are, but I doubt he was being intentionally or maliciously spiritually aggressive. He even advocated for more religious pluralism aboard his ship by advocating that those of other faiths be allowed to offer the nightly prayer when the Navy demanded that he not stress his own faith so much (I believe that the Navy rejected his proposal, tho and, according to him,asked him to sermonize outside of his faith, which I do not agree with). I think that he is in the right in some ways (he should not be forced to be inclusive) and in some ways not (if he feels uncomfortable being inclusive, then he should find a job where he can preach evangelical sermons to those who share his faith). There are many chaplains of many faiths who do not feel threatened by praying to their God using neutral terms so as to include all the soldiers who are present to hear them. Furthermore, what is the point of leading a prayer if many of the people there won't be praying with you because they do not share a belief in the deity you invoke in your words?
I don't believe he intended any malice, but I think that a military chaplain who rejects the idea that he should be inclusive should find another job or simply remain on as private counsel to those who share his faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:33 PM anastasia has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 27 of 48 (386488)
02-22-2007 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by anastasia
02-21-2007 9:31 PM


Curious...does the military deceased have a say in what type of funeral he wishes, or was this a formal service aside from a private one?
the family decides, and a chaplain officiates. i think you might be able to have someone else do it, especially if it's not at a millitary cemetary. it's been a while and i don't quite remember. there are often larger memorial services such as each quarter at the millitary hospitals. likewise, a family may decide to select a religious emblem for the standard issue tombstone if the deceased is buried in a millitary cemetary.
I mentioned in my previous post that I feel that an evangelical sermon (or perhaps an evangelical prayer amidst a more generalized service) is quite apropriate when presiding over an evangelical's funeral and I don't think it should be military policy to disallow that (unless, of course, other soldiers are forced to attend services, which I don't think they are). Similarly, if a Catholic priest was the chaplain of the ship he should be allowed to give Catholic prayers during a Catholic's funeral, but should not be asked to give evangelical prayers during an evangelical's funeral, instead asked to give an ecumenical sermon.
the only soldiers "forced" to attend any religious service would be the color guard at funerals. but they volunteer for that and it's the highest honor.
your description sounds fairly accurate. often, the mixed ceremonies will involve nothing more than calls to eternity and comfort and memory. standard stuff.
i think i got distracted and responded to different posts here. i don't know. my eyes hurt and i feel like complete crap.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 9:31 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 28 of 48 (386503)
02-22-2007 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jaderis
02-21-2007 8:33 PM


I think, as has been suggested previously I believe, that perhaps the confusing issue is the religion of the dead sailor. In the letter of instruction where his CO brings up the issues he has with Klingenschmitt, see here for a copy of the letter and Klingenschmitts defense of the points raised, it states that the sailor was Catholic and that either an ecumenical or catholic service would have been appropriate but one with an evangelical tenor was not.
In his defense Klingenschmitt points out that as well as a catholic the sailor was also 'born again'.
The sermon I preached from Romans 8 is the exact same
sermon I preached earlier, on the day EN2 D.R. voluntarily
came forward in one of my worship services, to re-dedicate
his life to Jesus Christ, shortly before he died. My
sermon truly honored D.R.’s personal faith.
From reading through the letter and Klingenshmitt's rebuttal I think that the service may well have been appropriate to the sailor's faith If Klingenschmitt is to be believed, but Klingenschmitt comes across as a real asshole and its easy to see how he got before a court martial for disobeying orders.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jaderis, posted 02-21-2007 8:33 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by anastasia, posted 02-22-2007 11:35 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 32 by Jaderis, posted 02-22-2007 4:42 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 48 (386517)
02-22-2007 8:42 AM


Piecing it together
I think that I've read enough to get a general sense of the situation.
For practical reasons a military chaplian has to minister to servicemen who may belong to different denominations and even different religions altogther. This requires a degree of tolerance and understanding that Klingenschmitt was apparently not capable of.
There were repeated complaints about his behaviour, so when the opportunity came to dump him the Navy apparently did just that - on the prefectly reasonable grounds that he was lousy at his job.
In short it's not prejudice against Christianity or even Evangelical Christians that is the real issue. It's that Klingenschmitt's intolerant religious views interfered with performing his duties. (It certainly can't be prejudice agaisnt Christianity if Christians are among those complaining about him !)
If this view is correct - and it fits with the evidence I've seen, then the Navy is basically right.

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 30 of 48 (386548)
02-22-2007 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Wounded King
02-22-2007 6:44 AM


Wounded King writes:
In his defense Klingenschmitt points out that as well as a catholic the sailor was also 'born again'.
Justifying his actions, eh, but all the while he probably would have acted the same regardless of the 'born again' statement.
It gets tricky. There is some kind of movement in certain parishes to have a sort of 'born-again' rebaptism into faith, and while it is controversial, and highly unneccessary according to the existing doctrines on baptism, the point is, that such born-again ceremonies do not equal conversion. Someone may be a born again CATHOLIC which is still not evangelical...I don't know the particulars of that aspect in regards to the Navy case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Wounded King, posted 02-22-2007 6:44 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024