I previously wrote about a Navy Chaplain who is facing court martial for praying in Christ’s name.  It included some very interesting things: a little history on the Chaplain, links to his web site, my letter to the Navy Times and their desire to publish it until they found out I was a Milblogger, etc..  I said that I would follow this story.  Here is my second installment.

As it turns out, the Chaplain is facing court martial not only for praying in Christ’s name in uniform, but also for preaching from Romans Chapter 8 at a memorial for a departed Christian sailor.  It is important to remember that this is part of a continuing effort to suppress the religious freedom of our Chaplains.  The initial volley was in the Air Force.  The history of this can be found here (along with a critique and response).  A temporary truce resulted from the stinging critique of the policy, but the volley continued in the Navy where Chaplain Klingenschmitt is the “example” being used by the Navy (you must read the critique — it is simply a demolition job; nothing remains of the policy after the critique is finished.  Loud Applause, high fives all around, and the scoreboard reads “Christians – 1, Lions – 0”).

It is also important to remember that the issue is not: where Klingenschmitt was when he prayed? whether he was in uniform? whether this was a sanctioned event? whether he was with Judge Roy Moore when he prayed? whether he had specific permission to pray in Christ’s name? whether he used this instance as a seed for further action or some other kind of protest against the Navy policy? or any other sideline issue.  We need to stay on-point in our analysis of this issue.  The military does not like people protesting orders or policies, and for good reason.  But however tempting it is to focus on the background noise, again, we must stay on-point in our analysis.  I can analyze the background noise for you later.

The are some important things to remember in our analysis of this question, including:

1. Is the Navy policy constitutional?
2. Is it even possible to pray a prayer that offends no one?

On the second question, since the nature of Christianity is exclusive (“I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me,” Jesus Christ, circa 33 A.D.), to fail to honor Christ in an attempt to keep from offending the adherents of some other faith by its very nature offends Christ, and therefore, the Christian (notice that I did not use the term CE when referring to dating; I used AD.  Does that offend anyone?).  It is rather like that old liberal college professor adage that goes “there is no such thing as truth,” to which the perceptive student might respond, “But professor, is your statement true?  If so, then the proposition “there is no truth” is manifestly false.  If your statement is false, then why should we listen to you?”

The laws of logic must be followed, and if the Christian is required to pray a prayer that does not offend the Muslim or the Jew, then by definition, he offends his own religion.  Another way of saying it is this.  ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.  Again, remember the laws of logic (in this case, the law of contradiction).

The Navy policy-makers are not thinking men; they attempt to require a Christian Chaplain to pray a prayer that offends no one, and thus they forget the fundamental laws of logic.  What they order is impossible.  It would violate the laws of logic.

As to the second question, the reader needs to refer to other more impressive works than anything that I can put into prose.  I recommend for starters:

1. Daniel L. Dreisbach, “Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment.”
2. Rousas J. Rushdoony, “The Nature of the American System.”

Suffice it to say based on Rushdoony’s work that most of the thirteen original colonies had an established religion or faith, and the ones that did not were Christian in their system of laws and regulations.  The first amendment did not promise freedom from religion, but the freedom of it.  The same colonies that had established religions also approved the first amendment, demonstrating conclusively that whatever it means, it does not mean that a Chaplain cannot pray in Christ’s name.

The most ironic and humerous aspect of the most recent legal ruling is the radical departure from the constitution that Rear Admiral Ruehe lapses into when he claims that the Chaplain could have “commanded the assent of the vast majority of his audience” by preaching something less exclusive.  Permit me a chuckle or two here.  Since when has the military worried about commanding the assent of a vast majority of its audience?  Good Lord!  How effeminate we have become as a nation.  It is literally embarrassing.  I guess I have to be embarrassed for all of us — apparently, the Rear Admiral is too stolid to be ashamed.

Does the Admiral not understand that the so-called “vast majority” of America is still Christian, and that commanding their assent requires the exclusive Christian message?  Does the Rear Admiral read and study?