According to Red State, the latest military crisis has nothing to do with troop strength issues, retention issues, funding the treatment of the growing number of permanently injured soldiers, but has to do with the right to proselytize:
What Does John Warner Have Against Jesus? Excuse Me, I Meant J***s
Right now, depending upon the branch of the military, etc. some chaplains who take literally Christ’s exhortation to pray in his name, are compelled by the service to refrain from praying in Jesus’ name. The same goes for muslim chaplains and Jewish chaplains. Prayers at these non-denominational services must be just that, nondenominational.
But what of the chaplain who feels compelled by the word of his God to pray as his God dictates? Well, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) wants to free up military chaplains who are running into conflicts between their conscience and command. Rep. Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has inserted a provision into the National Defense Authorization Act, which simply states, “chaplains in each of the military services would have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of their own conscience.”
***Senator Warner’s provision would not protect chaplains who want to fully follow the commandments of their God. More and more it is the Christian chaplain who is getting into hot water for mentioning Jesus. So, again, what does John Warner have against Jesus?
You can’t make this shit up- John Warner is being accused of hating Jesus because he wants Chaplains to follow military regulations.
Let’s be clear about what is happening here. This is not a case of John Warner (a religious man himself), waking up in a cranky mood and deciding he needs to mess with God. It is Duncan Hunter, using the case of Lt. Gordon J. Klingenschmitt, a military man who was court-martialed for attending a political activity in uniform, to insert language into the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that authorizes 480+ billion in expenditures for the military, to CHANGE the current standards for behavior by religious leaders in the military.
Get it right- THEY want to change the rules and guidelines to make it easier for the kind of bellicose proselytization we have seen become more frequent (more here) in the past few years. It isn’t John Warner simply hating the baby Jesus, so let’s make that clear.
Apparently, even in the military, these nitwits need all of us to hear about their God for them to really believe. We’ll file this post under the category of ‘faith.’
*** Update ***
The Other Steve has a great catch in the comments:
WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP!
The Political Bullshit alarm just went off. So I had to go look.
Duncan Hunter is facing John Rinaldi(Dem) in his reelection in 2006.
John Rinaldi was a Navy Reserves officer during Desert Storm, and…
was a Military Chaplain.
Just another example of the GOP cynically using religion and manipulating the faithful for their own electoral purposes. I can hear it now- so what if John Rinaldi was a military chaplain- DUNCAN HUNTER is REALLY changing lives with his work. Say it out loud so it sinks in- they are futzing with the language in the Defense Authorization Act to get themselves re-elected.
jcricket
Well, duh! This is part of the right’s long-standing goal of destroying the entire meaning of the words “tolerance” and “bigotry”.
It’s now intolerant and bigoted (in the negative, should be banned sense) to call someone who hates black people or thinks no gay person should be portrayed in a positive light a bigot.
It’s intolerant and bigoted to enforce military regulations that prevent intolerant religious zealots from using their positions of power to preach “my way or you go to hell” to recruits in their charge.
Up is quite literally, down, in these people’s worlds.
The Other Steve
WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP!
The Political Bullshit alarm just went off. So I had to go look.
Duncan Hunter is facing John Rinaldi(Dem) in his reelection in 2006.
John Rinaldi was a Navy Reserves officer during Desert Storm, and…
was a Military Chaplain.
capelza
Did the author of this piece miss that even thought they wrote it? It isn’t about hating Jesus, it’s about being non-demoninational. Apparantly Senator Warner hates Yahweh and Allah, too.
Now if that provision passes will Red State be happy to defend a Muslim cleric who prays “according to the dictates of their own conscience.” when the Southern Baptists (for example) in the congregation pitch a fit?
The Other Steve
I hear Senator Warner hates Zeus and Odin as well.
Mike in SLO
Guess what? Jesus wouldn’t be hanging with the military and wouldn’t be endorsing their mission. Jesus didn’t believe in war and preached we should show our enemies love. Why does Res State.org hate Jesus?
capelza
Well THAT tears it!
If priests of Zeus can’t sacrifice bulls in front of a non-demoninational congregation then Red State does have a point…or not.
Pb
However, it is nice to see Red State standing up for the right of military chaplains to worship Satan–if their conscience so dictates.
Tsulagi
You know, you’re always prone to falling into the trap of thinking you know the bounds of the stupidity the faithful patriot warriors. Then they’ll come up with this kind of shit to prove you wrong. They are beyond brain dead.
That’s why we’re struggling in the GSAVE! It’s that separation of church and military wall. Hey, did that bitch Gorelick have something to do with that wall too?! Inquiring brain-free minds want to know.
Yes, the Air Force Academy in Colorado has long suffered under the tyranny of Christian persecution. We need to save those cadets from a military without Jesus as their gunner!
The Other Steve
Nothing like a “nondenominational” sermon from Ba‘al Zebûb prior to executing a mission to really get a guy motivated.
Punchy
I always cringe when Mr. Cole writes this, as what follows is usually anything but a clarification. But in this case, nice post.
Are there Army Chaplins that are of Muslim faith? Can they bow to Allah and sing his praises now? How would Rumsfeld react to that?
Tsulagi
Oh, now I see the update. Guess it was just the typical faux crocodile tears and toughiness outrage at their continual persecution as the usual mask over their true spoiled brat self-serving nature. Bushy would be proud.
ChristieS
The thread itself was pretty interesting. It seems that the RedStaters don’t cotton to having an officer disobey a direct order, but that they are also wondering how or even if, the general regulation should be altered.
Well, several of the commenters were. A couple of others were basically saying that evangelical Chaplains should be allowed to proselytize at any time because that’s what their religion requires, even during “non-denominational” events.
I’m glad I’m Pagan. I don’t have to worry about it! I just need to duck around the seething mob whenever I’m at a bbq. /snark
ChristieS
Now you’ve done it! I guess I’ll have to go picket Warner’s office. Maybe I’ll get the good folks at Witchvox to call and email ad nauseum (did I spell that right?)
He can’t get away with thinking like that!
SeesThroughIt
True, he merely hates them. But you know who he openly fucking loathes? Vishnu.
Man, Crybaby Christians are annoying.
capelza
Actually, there were some very intelligent comments over there..and some that weren’t.
I am never suprised anymore at the inability of some religious in this country to be understnad that not everyone shares their belief system. Even within the different sects and denominations. Saddest of all is that they don’t realise that part of what makes America great is that people with different beliefs can come together for common purpose. But that coming together requires that those beliefs which sparate us should be left at the door and the ones that unite us be expressed.
Reading some of the comments I was struck by how brittle some folks are. The chaplain that couldn’t refrain from telling the funeral attendees that they were going to go hell…now couldn’t he have found other parts of the new testament to use just that once? You know..the “good news”.
But then I’m an Episcopalian…we want everyone to get along! And to use the right fork with our salad course!!!!!
srv
Via Sullivan:
Look, this is just beyond ridiculous. Doug, it’s time to come out, you’re really Glenn and Hugh, right?
The Other Steve
My favorite biblical quote for evangelicals… especially female.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”
Remember, the Bible is the unadulterated Word of God. That wasn’t Paul speaking, that was God speaking through Paul.
scs
As usual everyone jumps to conclusions and tries to outdo each other in their vehemence of agreement. Wow, group think. People are such sheep. Anyway, does anyone know how this rules applies? Did you see this?
Does anyone here even know how this applies? Does this court martial offense apply to what Chaplains say on the field? Or in battle to an injured soldier who is about to die? Although non-believers may find it silly, some people ARE actually religious -like maybe 85% of the US, and when they are about to face death in battle, they may like to hear a little about it- but I’m just guessing here. Perhaps we should just losen the rules so that people can have the conversations about religion without a court martial – as in freedom of speech.
Again, I’m not even religious, but I am fair. I don’t have to be a part of something to see when something is not fair – it’s called an imagination. Maybe you should all try some – even if it interferes with the comfort of your group think.
scs
Damn the strikethrus – and the repeats – sorry..
Sojourner
Sorry, scs, but freedom of speech doesn’t apply in the military. For obvious reasons such as implicit coercion when a ranking officer proselytizes to a subordinate. The same is true in the business world as well. Remember the old saying about religion and politics? It’s true.
scs
Okay, elections are for what….? How about elections are a time when issues are brought up that resonate with people. It’s kind of like the minimum wage drive makes a round every now and then around election time. It’s not necessarily cynical. It’s funny John, you LOATHE Nancy Grace because you think she jumps to conclusions, but you are jumping to conclusion on this guy as a manipulater just on the fact that he got attention for bringing religion up around election time. Are you familiar with anything else about this man than that little snippet you just read? How do you know that he hasn’t been speaking up about this for years? Where is your proof Nancy Grace?
John D.
I’m — as per usual — really tired of this type of “well, how does anyone ‘know'” argument. 15 seconds with Google will answer your question. From the Army FM1-05:
All chaplains in all branches of the service are there to see to the needs of the SOLDIERS, not the needs of their own FAITH.
scs
Well JohnD, you didn’t understand my point, but I’m not surprised. 15 seconds of extra reading may help you. My question is not does the military have to provide the compatible religious person of the soldier’s choice. It is, can a Chaplain have a religious conversation with a willing listener outside of a chapel, say on the battlefield? Try and google that for me first.
Krista
Besides, why is non-demoninational prayer so threatening and wrong to them? Prayer should be primarily from the heart, not from the mouth, so why can’t these people pray to God (or Vishnu, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) in their hearts, while reciting their verbal prayer in a way that will actually be inclusive and accepting of all of the faiths of their flock?
But I guess that a lot of religion is not meant to be inclusive. Far from it.
capelza
scs..google it yourself.
John Cole
Jesus wept.
This probably is an issue that resonates with a few in the wingnut community- but that doesn’t mean it is any less a cynical manipulation of a perfectly fine policy by inserting language into the Defense Allocation Act by a man who JUST SO HAPPENS to be running against a former military chaplain. And then, Red State, who just so happens to be a little pissed at John Warner for other reasons, blatantly misrepresents what happened and claims he doesn’t like Jesus.
Why don’t you ask Nancy Grace if OJ’s glove fit if this isn’t a good enough response for you.
scs
I would hardly call the Christian community the few of the wingnut community. It is after all 85% of the nation, and I’m guessing even more in the military, as the military seems to attract a more traditional bunch. And as the saying goes, there are no aethists in a foxhole.
. I don’t know about Red State, I don’t really care what they think about it. But I don’t know where your PROOF is that this man inserted it in just for manipulation, that timing alone is not enough for me. I would have to hear a little more about his background before I judge him guilty.
Wait, is this why you hate Nacny Grace? Don’t tell me you’re an OJ defender. Wait- he was a football star… it all makes sense to me now. OJ Simpson, John Cole’s childhood hero.. Nancy Grace against OJ, Nancy bad…Okay, I get it now. Nuff said.
Sojourner
I hope you’re not claiming that all of those Christians would support this bullshit.
Pb
Why aren’t there atheists in our foxholes? I say we stuff our foxholes with atheists, then we bring back our Christian boys where it’s safe! Yes… We know atheists are brave. They’re not afraid to go to Hell and be tortured by Satan for all eternity… which is what’s going to happen. They’re not going to be afraid of insurgents. I say we ship ‘em out, let ‘em destroy someone else’s society for a change. And hey, we could get churches to share their membership information with the government. That way, if someone doesn’t go to to church for, let’s say, a year, they’ll get to stand outside a mosque. And as for agnostics, we’ll send them to Afghanistan. That’s a war pretty much anybody can, you know, kinda believe in.
— Stephen Colbert
Krista
Yeah. Um. Remember that mother that Nancy Grace raked over the coals? The one whose kid was missing? The one who then killed herself after your heroine basically accused her of having something to do with the kidnapping of her own child?
Funny…you didn’t need too much PROOF to judge her guilty, did you?
And yet, you’re chiding John because he doesn’t have PROOF that a politician is cynical and manipulative.
John, will I get banned for telling scs that she’s retarded?
Punchy
Can someone explain why running against a former military chaplain is important in parsing his actions with regards to military chaplains?
Struggle as I may, I see coincidence, not malfeasance. Is he trying to show up his opponent, butter up to his opponent, or is he just trying to make light of his opponent’s former gig? What’s the earth-shattering importance of this? Thanks.
Sojourner
It’s a holier-than-thou war.
John D.
Jesus Christ.
I *gave* you the link. Can you not read?
A quick perusal shows these gems:
These all have something in common — the SOLDIER’S beliefs, faith, rights, and desire, not the CHAPLAIN’S. Any soldier who is a “willing listener” can of course be ministered to within the chaplain’s faith. The problems arise when they are coerced, captive or otherwise unwilling to be prosyletized.
scs
The irony goes both ways honey.
Punchy
Sorry, but I’m REALLY fucking dense. Still don’t get it. Could you elaborate?
capelza
scs…85% identify as Christian, but I can tell that a huge swath of these would certainly be uncomfortable if not downright angry is some chaplain officiating at their child’s funeral mentioned that he most likely was going to hell.
If you can’t see the vast differences in what constitutes calling oneself Christian…well, to follow Krista’s lead..you are retarded.
scs
First of all buddy- what the Army says does not nec apply to other branches. Can you not read this from above? I will repeat it:
What is the definition of a public service – two guys listening perhaps and then the preacher gets courtmartialed? I still need more info first before I jump on the bandwagon.
Pb
The Christian right in the US is about 14% of the nation, whereas the total Christian population is more like 77%. So just as roughly 80% of Americans are Christian, roughly 80% of American Christians aren’t part of the Christian right.
DougJ
I hear Senator Warner hates Zeus and Odin as well.
What about all the Gods he doesn’t hate? How come we never hear about them?
Pb
Krista,
I doubt you’ll get banned, but it’s really not nice to make fun of retarded people–they can’t help it, after all.
Krista
I suppose. I’ll retract the word, then, and will substitute it with “wilfully stupid.”
Better?
scs
Much better.
JWeidner
Doesn’t mean they’re all Christians in the foxhole either though…
John D.
It. Is. A. Constitutional. Freedom.
I quoted from the Army Field Manual. The exact same principles apply to all branches.
From Air Force PD 52-1:
From SECNAVINST 1730.7C:
From Marine Corps Manual 2816:
Again, none of this even applies to your “willing listener” theory. Note that the ground-based services have the most spelled out, while the water-based services leave much unsaid. That’s because the military has a long-standing (necessary) tradition of giving its officers leeway. The Navy and Marines have a far, far smaller pool of personnel in the immediate vicinity to draw from (contrast the size of, say, Ft. Benning with a destroyer), so the needs of the service can cause problems with individual rights. In all cases, however, the CO of the unit had better be able to point to a very good reason for whipping out “needs of the service”, or he will face disciplinary action.
In the case of Lt. Gorden J. Klingenschmitt, the Navy had issued a directive, 1730.7C, and also expressly forbidden him from taking part in a protest over this directive. He chose to take part, offering a “ceremonial prayer” there, directly violating an order from his superior.
In other words, you’re full of it. Stop playing a concern troll and get educated.
Richard 23
Jewish chaplins pray in Christ’s name? Who knew?
DougJ
Richard, a lot of Christians don’t know they’re really Jewish. Ask George Allen.
Mr Furious
I don’t have to google that to know that two willing and equal participants in a conversation can talk about whatever the fuck they want, stupid. Battlefield, uniform or not.
When that convesation takes place from a pulpit to pew, or in the context of superior officer to captive subordinate, that’s different.
Faux News
I suspect scs was “Uncle Meat” a notorious right wing Troll on F*ckedcompany.com in a former life.
“Uncle Meat” whose real identity was eventually found out and published, LOVED to keep as many threads going as long as possible. How? By playing the same “poor stupid me” broken record that is scs. Keep ignoring imperical data, quotes, links etc… that harm your (read scs) Trolling. Merely dismiss/ignore all data provided to you and keep posting the same RNC talking points over and over and over.
Of course once the thread FINALLY dies then pull an “Uncle Meat” and chortle about how easy it is to “bait liberals” and make them waste hours of time engaging with you.
scs = Tired Old Troll
Tsulagi
Of course they do. They are the light. They are the way to glory for all true believers. They say so in their 3AM infomercials. Send $19.95 in three easy payments and you’ll get a swell pin confirming it.
Pb
I doubt it. That is to say, I don’t doubt that she’s a troll… but a Zappa fan?
canuckistani
An idiotic saying that has always irked me.
http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/
Richard 23
And as the saying goes, there’s no rationality in wingnuts.
srv
No, I’m a lamb. Lamb of God.
scs
Look John D, you can keep repeating the same points over and over again that bypass the entire issue. Everything you have block quoted talked about how the services have to provide religious freedom and diversity to the members. All well and good.
What you have again failed to address is the point I highlighted above, in fact I will repeat it again “the Navy recently determined that “public worship” is only acceptable inside Sunday chapel services”. If you have a chaplain speaking to a group of members on the field, maybe as little as two, three, four, and talking about Christ, it seems to me that unless he gets all their permission in writing stating that they are not offended by what he is saying, he could be disciplined. Since you are so adept at googling military rules, again I ask you to provide some evidence about what a ‘public worship’ is and what is allowed in conversations outside of this public worship.
Speaking of trolls, I’ve noticed a very DougJ tactic of just throwing out block quotes and technical terms about some issue that have nothing to do with a topic, hoping that no one will bother to read them. Well I did friend, your bluff is called again.
scs
Ignorance is bliss I guess.
Richard 23
Please tell us more about it.
John D.
*What* fucking bluff?
You are the one shifting the goal posts, not I.
You started by asking this: “Does anyone here even know how this applies? Does this court martial offense apply to what Chaplains say on the field? Or in battle to an injured soldier who is about to die?”
I then quoted the Army Field Manual that deals with this.
You then decided to bring up willing participants — a completely moronic question, BTW — and chided me for not reading. Yet it was patently obvious that I *did* read your little concern troll schtick and found documentary evidence to respond which *you* had neglected to read. (Hint: Follow my fucking links, I’m not providing them to trip the moderation policy, I’m providing them because they are RELEVANT TO YOUR QUESTIONS).
So, you had to dodge again, this time to “First of all buddy- what the Army says does not nec apply to other branches. Can you not read this from above? I will repeat it:”
So I went and provided the relevant information from the OTHER branches of service, again helpfully pointing out that they are all written with a focus on THE SOLDIER’S FUCKING FAITH, not the chaplain’s. How you can continue to claim that everyone is ignoring poor lil ol’ yous concerns is pathetic.
The chaplain is there to help the soldiers, not convert them to their particular brand of faith. If they have a problem with that, they need to resign. That is why the regs are written the way they are.
A chaplain discussing his faith with two, three or four servicemen in the field is not “public worship”. Holding services is “public worship”. Leading troops in a prayer is “public worship”. It’s incredibly disingenuous of you to act like this is a horribly grey area.
The Lieutenant that got court-martialed under these regs *willfully disobeyed a legal order*. I don’t give a rat’s ass what your faith is — that is a court-martialable offense. Oddly enough, that’s exactly what he got, too.
scs
Umm – where?
Acording to what I read above- public worhsip is only acceptable in a chapel. Does a chaplain leading 4 servicemen in prayer on the field considered unacceptable public worship? What about 2? What about 8? Is dicsussing religion and Christ with 8 men on the field over the line? What about just 2? What are the parameters? Hence, the original question remains – but I think you just ain’t gonna get it – so forget it.
KC
Ah, this story’s just par for the course. I just hope Dems do something positive in November.
Larry
Rubbed with rosemary and roasted, lamb is quite delicious.
The Other Steve
scs – It would behove you to spend a bit of time researching this instead of blinding bleeting on the wingnut bandwagon. You are such a sheep.
Larry
It’s a hard thing to pin down.
EL
scs, you quoted a RedState post
I didn’t read the original thread, and give RedState no benefit of the doubt based on past experience. Do you have a link to an OFFICIAL source that says public worship is only acceptable on Sunday? Because frankly, I’m not sure I believe it.
Kirk Spencer
scs,
Actually, the problem – or at least part of it – is that the Red State poster’s claims are wrong. That is, the statement rather seriously mis-states the decision of the court martial of Lt Klingenschmitt.
First, the policy at the root: “Other than Divine/Religious Services, religious elements for a command function, absent extraordinary circumstances, should be non-sectarian in nature.” That’s from the Feb 21 SECNAV INSTRUCTION 1730.7C.
Second, the charges. Lt. Klingenschmitt requested permission to attend the March 30 2006 protest of SI 1730.7C. In his request he informed his commander that there would be a press conference and he expected to be present. His commander told him he could attend BUT he could not wear his uniform during media appearances EXCEPT WHEN he was conducting a bona fide worship service. Lt. Klingenschmitt wore his uniform, giving prayer at the beginning of his portion of the press conference, and used as his defense the claim that this press conference was a bona fide worship service. Paraphrasing, “any time a chaplain says it’s a worship servic then it is a worship service”.
At this point we can bring back in the comment from Erick of Red State. Because of the argument of the defense it was necessary to decide what constituted a bona fide worship service – determining that would decide whether the chaplain violated orders.
Now here’s the fun part. The prosecution made several arguments about what defined a worship service by citing law and regulation. Among these regulations is the one that’s partially cited in Klingerschmitt’s defense – that chaplains are to be allowed to worship in accordance with the tenets and habits of their denomination. Unfortunately there’s more to that regulation. Such as the fact that the first part of the sentence includes the phrase “insofar as possible”. And that it’s a passage about observance of Sunday. And there are other clauses about ‘a suitable space’ and how services are not to be exclusionary and so on. In other words, a worship service is by implication a time and place SET ASIDE FOR THE PURPOSE.
But that’s what the PROSECUTION argued. What the five officers of the court said was “guilty of disobeying a direct order.” The rest is noise resulting from Klingenschmitt’s religious activism.
Kirk Spencer
I should have given the link for the pdf of the regulations.
http://dodssp.daps.mil/Directives/regs/ch-8.pdf .
Insofar as possible, worship on sunday in a place set aside for the purpose, modifying all other actions so as to not interfere. So much for “only” and “must”.
(“Insofar” being a paraphrase.)
scs
No I don’t sorry. I don’t know whether it’s true or not. However, I can’t say that it is false either. That’s why I asked the linking John D to provide some links that shed light on that info, but instead I got parrallel links on other info. We need to first understand the parameters of this supposedly “free” speech before we jump to conclusions and ridicule the complainants.
You know that is why I called you all sheep. And don’t take it personally, that’s means pretty much everyone in humanity. It’s always the same thing. It starts out where some group leader proclaims some opinion, like ‘that woman is an idiot.’ Then one by one, everyone jumps on the bandwagon, trying to outdo each other in their feelings against the women. First, “Yeah, I hate that woman”. Then “That woman is the devil!” Pretty soon, “‘that woman’ is responsible for the Armageddon”. No where along the line do I ever hear someone ask, well what about her side of the story or, what is the proof, or are we sure we know all the background about it. No. I hardly ever see anyone ask questions ever. It becomes less debate than some weird performance art after a while.
And as much as you all ridicule Nancy Grace, she spends all of her show trying to get the details, digging for the facts, getting background. She invites any expert on she can to shed light, and many spokesmen and lawyers speaking for the accused. So before she forms her opinion, as strong as they may be, she at least has evidence and presents both sides of the story for all to see, as much as we can get anyway, before she makes up her mind. Unlike many of the people on here, who make up their minds on many issues before they even scratch the surface of the issues surrounding it.
scs
Okay Kirk, thanks for the info. Good to provide some relevant info.
Larry
I’m confused. We are all sheep, and human. But you are not one of us?
I feel that I am looking upon the cutting edge of new thought. And this humanity …. you are not part of it?
Pb
What a shock. However, I’m sure we’ll still see this canard popping up, years later. I just tracked down another one of those, incidentally, it turns out that it started with a smear in The Washington Times, but once it gets out there, these things have a life of their own, and even in the media sometimes, it seems that primary sources are for wusses. Pfft.
Jess
At the risk of repeating what all the other sheep are asking, WHY OH WHY are you not looking up this stuff yourself instead of passively waiting for others to spoon-feed you the facts? And why are you jumping to the conclusion that people are jumping to conclusions when they are actually drawing well-informed conclusions? I don’t have a problem with you or anyone else challenging anyone else’s position, but it’s an annoying waste of time for you to do so without first doing some of your own research (hint: research is not the same thing as reviewing right-wing talking points).
Okay, I’m not being nice. But willful ignorance is exceptionally exasperating.
scs
If someone is going to say I am wrong on the issues and facts, and say he knows all the facts, then I expect him to cite some facts to back up his claim. Otherwise he has no right to draw firm conclusions of blame without some evidence. I drew no such conclusions and merely stated that we needed more evidence. He was the one with the firm conclusions = he is the one who needs the evidence. Capesh?
I’m on an outlier.
The Other Steve
So let me get this straight.
You’re saying that we need more evidence to support opposition to a bill to change existing law?
Seriously?
This is because the current law isn’t good enough, and we know this because of why exactly?
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I count scs’s when I have trouble getting to sleep at night.
p.lukasiak
What you have again failed to address is the point I highlighted above, in fact I will repeat it again “the Navy recently determined that “public worship” is only acceptable inside Sunday chapel services”.
sorry,
Ms RetardedWillfully Ignorant, but unless you provide a link to the actual ruling, and not the interpretation of that ruling by some wingnut –especially since that interpretation makes no sense — we remain skeptical.Chaplains can lead and/or participate in religious services with those of common faith any time they want to. However, they also have an obligation to provide for the spiritual needs of all service members in a non-demoninational fashion unless they have a religious conflict in doing so — in which case they have to seek out others who can provide for the spiritual needs of the service member.
I haven’t read the ruling, but I’ll tell you what. I’ll go and find the actual ruling and if you aren’t misrepresenting it, I’ll leave Balloon Juice forever–provided that if you are misrepresenting it, you leave Balloon Juice forever.
Because I can guarantee that there is no prohibition against “public worship” by Chaplains during the week — (here’s one FUCKING CLUE — the Jewish Sabbath isn’t on Sunday…..)
John D.
scs,
Look, I told you where to find information for your “what is public worship?” troll.
For instance, for the Navy, from SECNAVINST 1730.7C,
(reference (a) is USC 10)
(reference (b) is Navy Regulations, 1990)
Do your own damn research for the other branches. The other links and references I posted earlier talk about this as well. I’m not going to quote entire manuals, I’m simply going to point you to where you can get educated.
It’s time for you to grow up and learn stuff, rather than regurgitate talking points. My point has always been that gaming the rules by the chaplain is WRONG. *ALL* of these regulations are written with the service member’s interest at their very heart. For you to pull this shit is demeaning to their service, and it’s well past time for you to stop.
The regs are very clear, as I have told you time and time again. Go read them, and we can discuss the reality of the situation, instead of your fantasies of “Is a chaplain talking to a willing participant worship services”. Until then, I’m done with you.
p.lukasiak
The regs are very clear, as I have told you time and time again.
but John, you haven’t addressed Ms Willfully Ignorant’s question about the ruling prohibiting public worship Monday-Saturday. The fact that its bullshit — that Ms WI is quoting a idiot wingnut moron who doesn’t bother to provide a link to the court martial decision — is irrelevant. Some dickbrain wrote something, Ms WI quoted it, and you have to address it regardless of how stupid it is.
Those are the rules — at least the rules that Ms WI says you have to obey (while never actually providing links to back up this particular claim….)
scs
Okay John D, your first link I cannot open because it has a security problem, and I don’t want to risk it. The second page said ‘page not found’. So does Kirk’s by the way.
Where did you say this above?
Uhhh okay, lets’ review. We were talking about the Navy and then you gave me a link about the Army which doesn’t apply. Then you block quoted some info about how servicemen deserve freedom of religion- nice but not relevant. Then you go off on some rant that you KNOW what the definition of a serivce is and you don’t have to look it up. Then at the very end of a thread you give me some link that doesn’t work, which I cannot check to see it it is real.
Most non-trolls actually give a link at the BEGINNING of the argument, not the end, John D to prove that they are right, and they actually take the few minutes it needs to EXCERPT the relevant passages to back up their claims. They don’t just point to some large manual and tell them to look it up themselves and expect to win the argument. So let’s face it JohnD, you never gave me any such link and are a liar. I will put you in the DougJ category because you are obviously not real. Man DougJ, just because I won’t write in your little fake blog, doesn’t mean you have to be a little brat about things.
capelza
Good grief…
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
I’m not DougJ, he’s not DougJ, Tim F.’s not DougJ, scs.
I AM beginning to get a little bit suspicious about you, however…
scs
And that goes for the rest of the bottom bunch there. Save a few for later man! Preserve the mystery.
scs
Yeah, tell it to the judge. Or your parole officer.
John D.
scs,
Sane people understand things like Field Manuals cover TOPICS. So, when I say
sane people would understand that 15 seconds with Google would lead them to these documents, where they can read all about all the regulations covering chaplain duties within the various branches.
I do realize that this precludes YOU from accomplishing this simple task, but frankly, that is not my problem. Nor is feeding your ego or faux wounded innocence. You asked a question
By use of “on the field”, I quoted from the Army manual.
You THEN shifted to “but what about willing participants?”, which is — on its very face — a dumbass question. All the regs I quoted were quoted to show that IN ALL CASES, the primary focus of the chaplain’s duty is to minister to the troops in such a way to support THEM, not the chaplain’s faith. If, and only if, that need cannot be met without conflict with the chaplain’s faith, does a conflict arise. Note that all of the regs stress “voluntary participation” as well.
You then shifted back to the Lieutenant’s case, which you have not read at all, since you continue to fundamentally misunderstand why he was court-martialed. He was court-martialed for *disobeying a direct order of a superior officer*. All the rest of your crap is pure smokescreen and trolling.
Now, after showing you the fucking DEFINITIONS of “Worship Service”, “Divine Services”, and “Religious Services” — from the Naval Manual I pointed you at 40 messages ago, you come back with
Here’s a fun exercise for you: Google on “SECNAVINST 1730.7C” Find a working link. Read the fucking document. Then come back and cast aspersions upon my honesty again, so I can again point out you are an idiot. I have absolutely no control over DoD websites, so I can’t help it if a link goes down, but these documents are actually stored on a whole bunch of different servers, so I’m sure you can find one somewhere.
I did not provide links on all quotes because of the moderation policy here. I’m so sorry that that offends your delicate sensibilities, but take it up with our hosts. The identification of the sources I gave was sufficient for you to hunt up the documents from authoritative sources.
John D.
Here’s a nice ironic link: From PersuadeTV, the ministry that the Lieutenant is currently at, the 1730.7C regulations
scs
Give it up JohnD. You’re not fooling anyone. Later.
John D.
Um, what?
How am I trying to “fool” anyone? I went and found you a link that works, to eliminate one facet of your whining. Now you have no reason not to go read and learn. That link is perfectly legit, Persuade TV is a legit organization, the Lieutenant has had his say via there media multiple times since the court-martial and is the *reason* the regs are on their site. Go compare the definitions I quoted upthread with the ones in that document. You’ll find that they are identical.
I called it ironic, since the link is there in defense of the Lt., yet is exactly why he lost the court-martial.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
.
???
Doug, I think this “scs” creation needs some fine-tuning.
Krista
We can only hope that scs is a DougJ(tm) production.
The alternative is that there is an actual human being running around out there who thinks that Nancy Grace is a wonderful human being, and that we shouldn’t accuse a politician of being manipulative, even though all signs point to it, just because we’re not able to physically prove somebody’s emotional motivation.
The mind boggles…