NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Just out of curiosity, does this strike you as being discriminatory?


Military chaplains told to shy from Jesus (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 21, 2005
To pray -- or not to pray -- in Jesus' name is the question plaguing an increasing number of U.S. military chaplains, one of whom began a multiday hunger strike outside the White House yesterday.
"I am a Navy chaplain being fired because I pray in Jesus' name," said Navy Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt, who will be holding 6 p.m. prayer vigils daily in Lafayette Park.
The hunger strike is intended to persuade President Bush to issue an executive order allowing military chaplains to pray according to their individual faith traditions. The American Center for Law and Justice has gathered 173,000 signatures on a petition seeking an executive order.
Seventy-three members of Congress have joined the request, saying in an Oct. 25 letter to the president, "In all branches of the military, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christian chaplains to use the name of Jesus when praying."
About 80 percent of U.S. troops are Christian, the legislators wrote, adding that military "censorship" of chaplains' prayers disenfranchises "hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers in the military who look to their chaplains for comfort, inspiration and support."
Official military policy allows any sort of prayer, but Lt. Klingenschmitt says that in reality, evangelical Protestant prayers are censored. He cites his training at the Navy Chaplains School in Newport, R.I., where "they have clipboards and evaluators who evaluate your prayers, and they praise you if you pray just to God," he said. "But if you pray in Jesus' name, they counsel you."
Muslim, Jewish and Roman Catholic chaplains are likewise told not to pray in the name of Allah, in Hebrew or in the name of the Trinity, he added.
But the Rev. Billy Baugham, executive director of the Greenville, S.C.-based International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, says restrictions on other religious expressions have "yet to be tested."
"No Islamic chaplain has been refused to pray in the name of Allah, as far as we know. Neither has a rabbi been rebuked for making references to Hanukkah, and no Catholic priest has been rebuked for referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary."
The Navy allows chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Allah or any other deity during chapel services, spokeswoman Lt. Erin Bailey said.
At other public events, "Navy chaplains are encouraged to be sensitive to the needs of all those present," she said, "and may decline an invitation to pray if not able to do so for conscience reasons."
Lt. Klingenschmitt has not been formally punished, she added, and there are no plans to take him off active duty.

It says that muslim and jewish chaplains are likewise restricted. So I would say that it's not discriminatory.

Yes. And quite stupid too. If you're not gonna let them invoke the divinity, what's the point of having a chaplain at all?

If it's accurate, then it may be considered discriminatory, but we're talking about the Washington Times here, and the article seems more than a little one-sided to me, so I have my doubts as to whether we're hearing the whole story. Is it possible that this particular chaplain is refusing to pray in any other way? Is he being responsive to the needs of everyone he's supposed to minister to, regardless of their personal beliefs? Is he trying to proselytize in his official capacity? I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but it looks like the reporter didn't bother to address them either.

Not really discriminatory if everyone is getting the same treatment, regardless of which particular religion they're representing as a chaplain. Though, personally, I would rather not have any of them censored that way. As long there can be chaplains of any religion, why not allow individual chaplains to pray in the manner of their faith?

It says that muslim and jewish chaplains are likewise restricted. So I would say that it's not discriminatory.
Discrimination widely employed is still discrimination.

A little bit. It's not "official" policy, so not really. I can understand it, though. Praying to "God" is fine, because people of all almost all religions can have their own God that they can believe the chaplain is praying to. But "Jesus" is pretty specific. I can understand the PR reasons for wanting to shy away from it.

Discrimination widely employed is still discrimination.
But who is it discriminating against? They're all being treated the same way.

That's like saying that if nobody is allowed to murder others then it's racial discrimination or something.

In what circumstances are such prayers frowned upon? During services not being able to invoke one's god is just retarded. If, however, the prayers are being held in front of a large number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines who may not share the faith, then I dont' find it discriminatory or wrong in the least.

In what circumstances are such prayers frowned upon? During services not being able to invoke one's god is just retarded. If, however, the prayers are being held in front of a large number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines who may not share the faith, then I dont' find it discriminatory or wrong in the least.

It's not invoking God's name that is frowned upon. It's invoking the name of Jesus Christ specifically.

It's not invoking God's name that is frowned upon. It's invoking the name of Jesus Christ specifically.
I said "one's god" because the article quoted also mentions that Muslims are discouraged from mentioning Allah, and Catholics aren't supposed to mention the trinity.

yes, i think that is discriminatory. even if all the faiths were treated equally, it would still be. if you're seeking prayer from a chaplain, you don't want him to be politically correct, you want him to seem bold in his faith. so if you're offended by a chaplain parying to the wrong deity, go find a different chaplain, but dont deny him the right to help whoever he's praying for.

I think the entire thing is ridiculous and that they should let people pray any way they want.

yes, i think that is discriminatory. even if all the faiths were treated equally, it would still be. if you're seeking prayer from a chaplain, you don't want him to be politically correct, you want him to seem bold in his faith. so if you're offended by a chaplain parying to the wrong deity, go find a different chaplain, but dont deny him the right to help whoever he's praying for.
I agree. If it's during church services or when a soldier approaches the chaplain for counselling it's ridiculous for the chaplain to be discouraged from mentioning his god.

If the chaplain is simply offering prayers around a mixed-religion group of soldiers, however, it's probably better that the prayers are non-denominational.

How are non-denominational prayers discriminatory?

I went to a school where prayers were occasionally held, and the teacher who was into all that, would hold them in the name of whichever deity the individual students believed, if any.

I call that tolerance, not discrimination.

But who is it discriminating against? They're all being treated the same way.

That's like saying that if nobody is allowed to murder others then it's racial discrimination or something.

No, it's discriminating against folks of all religions. If there were no athiests and everyone had something/someone to pray to, your argument might be valid.

what's the point of having a chaplain at all?

I've often wondered about that myself...

No, it's discriminating against folks of all religions. If there were no athiests and everyone had something/someone to pray to, your argument might be valid.
By that same train of thought is it already discrimination against atheists that they have no "chaplins"?

No, it's discriminating against folks of all religions. If there were no athiests and everyone had something/someone to pray to, your argument might be valid.

Not really. Discrimination is making distinctions based on class or race or something like that. Since all of the chaplains are equally treated no distinction is being made, thus it is not discrimination.

This is stupid. It's as if the military is just punishing their people for no reason at all.

But who is it discriminating against? They're all being treated the same way.

That's like saying that if nobody is allowed to murder others then it's racial discrimination or something.
They are all being discriminated against. The article specifies that prayers to a generic-type god are accepted while those of specifically-named gods are not. It is not a matter of whether they are all treated the same way as each other, but that in certain circumstances they are treated differently than 'normal' circumstances.*

It is more akin to sexual discrimination than racial.

*EDIT: ...despite policy.

How are non-denominational prayers discriminatory?

I went to a school where prayers were occasionally held, and the teacher who was into all that, would hold them in the name of whichever deity the individual students believed, if any.

I call that tolerance, not discrimination.
It is not having non-demoninational prayers that is discriminatory, but disallowing demoninational ones.

By that same train of thought is it already discrimination against atheists that they have no "chaplins"?
Um.... no. :)

Um ... yup
If it is discriminatory just because religions happen to use the services and atheists usualy dont
Then the fact that thoes services are not provided for atheist as well is discriminatory

(I am not making a value judgement on it ... personaly I think the whole thing is stupid)

Um ... yup
If it is discriminatory just because religions happen to use the services and atheists usualy dont
Then the fact that thoes services are not provided for atheist as well is discriminatory

(I am not making a value judgement on it ... personaly I think the whole thing is stupid)
It is not discriminating in favour of religious folk to make use of a priest, nor discriminating against atheist folk to not have services provided with a stand-in fake priest who would stand up there and make everyone recite fake prayers.

Or did you have in mind a guest lecturer to talk about a topic-of-the-day?

Oddly, how does one suggest that Allah and Jesus are equivalent. Allah is the Muslim name for God. Mohammed is more similar to Jesus for Muslims, isn't he? If one religion can use their name for the deity and another can't, it seems a little arbitrary to me.

But who is it discriminating against? They're all being treated the same way.

That's like saying that if nobody is allowed to murder others then it's racial discrimination or something.

Discrimination against religious people

It is not discriminating in favour of religious folk to make use of a priest, nor discriminating against atheist folk to not have services provided with a stand-in fake priest who would stand up there and make everyone recite fake prayers.

Or did you have in mind a guest lecturer to talk about a topic-of-the-day?
Either or ... the point is the logic behind both is somehow lacking

Just because both groups do not make use of the services provided by a chaplin does not make it automaticly discriminatory

Discrimination against religious people
How so? as long as they apply the same standards to both religious and non religious folks technicaly the act in of itself is not discriminitory

I find it stupid none the less but still

Oddly, how does one suggest that Allah and Jesus are equivalent. Allah is the Muslim name for God. Mohammed is more similar to Jesus for Muslims, isn't he? If one religion can use their name for the deity and another can't, it seems a little arbitrary to me.
To Christians Jesus was god.

The point of this thread is to whine about the myth of Anti-Christian Persecution in America. Can we please move on?

To Christians Jesus was god.

Only to some Christians.

The point of this thread is to whine about the myth of Anti-Christian Persecution in America. Can we please move on?
You got something better to do then debate on a debate forum (where the reading and participation in threads is absolutly voulentary) ?

You got something better to do then debate on a debate forum (where the reading and participation in threads is absolutly voulentary) ?

Unlike quite a few people, I don't say "I don't care" in a topic I don't care about. However, I find the whole "Christians Are Being Persecuted in America" tirade to be rather baseless. If anything, churches aren't being raided on a regular basis, and if anything the more blatantly cult-like aspects are being left alone, just like the freaks who took over Colorado City and are now holed up in a Bigger Than Waco compound in West Texas. Christians don't have their names put on a watchlist and they don't get asked to open their packages in front of customs officials just because they came back from a country with a Christian sounding name.

No, it's discriminating against folks of all religions. If there were no athiests and everyone had something/someone to pray to, your argument might be valid.
If all prayers were disallowed, your argument might be valid, but that is not the case.

The point of this thread is to whine about the myth of Anti-Christian Persecution in America. Can we please move on?
What's this myth you are spreading?

Is anything untoward really going on here?

The Navy allows chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Allah or any other deity during chapel services, spokeswoman Lt. Erin Bailey said

and

Lt. Klingenschmitt has not been formally punished, she added, and there are no plans to take him off active duty.

So right of the bat, this man's claim that he is "being fired because I pray in Jesus' name." appears to be untrue. Being "counseled" about ecumenical prayer is a far cry from being fired. Though I suppose if he's unable to discipline himself to abide by navy policies that could be affecting his career.

It sounds to me like another case of a special interest group (evangelical chaplains in this instance) wanting to push their preferences in the public arena.

Frankly, the navy's policy of encouraging their chaplains to be "sensitive to the needs of all those present," at public non-worship events, seems perfectly reasonable to me. Especially since the chaplains are free to opt out of such public events if they feel they can't in good conscience provide a ecumenical prayer.

Elicere

There's something about being permitted to pray, but only if you 'pray the right way' that strikes me as a bit discriminatory, but maybe that's just me.

Maybe people are on edge about hearing Muslims say anything referring to Allah or Mohammed so they felt compelled to request that everyone stop saying anything but "God" as a generic term to keep the peace between the different religious factions.

I think they shoudl be allowed to pray to whomever they want to personally.

Only to some Christians.
Really? Which groups deny that Jesus was god and still call themselves Christians. I thought that was the main requirement for being a Christian.

Really? Which groups deny that Jesus was god and still call themselves Christians. I thought that was the main requirement for being a Christian.

No, many people believe Jesus was the Son of God. He was divine. Divinity does not require him to be God. Christianity requires that you consider him divine and the Savior. It does not require you to believe his is God.

Christianity requires that you consider him diving and the Savior.
Does he compete in the Heavenly Olympics?

Does he compete in the Heavenly Olympics?

You suck.

Does he compete in the Heavenly Olympics?

Moses won all the Relay and Diving contests by forfeit.

Yes. And quite stupid too. If you're not gonna let them invoke the divinity, what's the point of having a chaplain at all?
Because at all Priests are masters at at least 7 types of weapons: sniper:

As they say:
There are no athiests in foxholes.

This is stupid. It's as if the military is just punishing their people for no reason at all.
I suspect that a considerable portion of this was brought on by the semi-scandal at the Air Force Academy when there seems to have been considerable proselytizing by Christians both on the faculty and within the student body. The military appears to be a bit gun-shy about this sort of issue these days.

COMMENTARY: Just out of curiosity, does this strike you as being discriminatory?


Military chaplains told to shy from Jesus (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 21, 2005
*snip*

The Navy allows chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Allah or any other deity during chapel services, spokeswoman Lt. Erin Bailey said.
At other public events, "Navy chaplains are encouraged to be sensitive to the needs of all those present," she said, "and may decline an invitation to pray if not able to do so for conscience reasons."
Lt. Klingenschmitt has not been formally punished, she added, and there are no plans to take him off active duty.

Even in this slanted article based almost entirely on the complaints of one chaplain that he is being punished (which isn't true), the truth must out.

Shame on you, Eut, for buying the hype (yet again).

Discrimination widely employed is still discrimination.

A rule that applies equally to everyone isn't discrimination in the first place.

In what circumstances are such prayers frowned upon? During services not being able to invoke one's god is just retarded. If, however, the prayers are being held in front of a large number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines who may not share the faith, then I dont' find it discriminatory or wrong in the least.

Although the fact was buried, the article says such prayers are only frowned upon when in public occasions in front of a diverse audience. Prayers during church services, etc., are unaffected.

This is much ado about nothing.

Even in this slanted article based almost entirely on the complaints of one chaplain that he is being punished (which isn't true), the truth must out.

Shame on you, Eut, for buying the hype (yet again).
Imagine...