Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Ex-chaplain Gordon Klingenchmitt has replied to my critique of his claims in a comment on that thread. I'm moving it up top to its own post for part two of the fisking (and no, Gordon, fisking is not a threat; put the gun down, no one here is going to hurt you). Pop some popcorn, kids, this is gonna be fun. He begins:
1) I'm not "hopping mad" but I suspect the Most High God will display His wrath on all idolators and athesists (sic), soon enough. Fear His anger, not mine.
I'm afraid I do not fear his anger in the least, any more than I fear the anger of the boogey man or Beetlejuice; the emotions of fictional characters rarely concern me. But here's a fairly obvious question: how will we be able to tell when God displays his wrath against the idolaters and atheists? Some claim that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to punish the sins of the city, but it looks like an ordinary hurricane to me. How can one tell when it's really the wrath of god and when it's just bad luck?
2) The Hindu chaplain did indeed pray to "spirits" when he said "may your spirits be as one."
Here is the full transcript, but it appears that he only read the first two paragraphs after being rudely interrupted. But even the full prayer he wanted to pray does not support your lies about it:
Let us pray. We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us.
May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind, because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion and without thought for themselves.
United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be as one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord.
Peace, peace, peace be unto all. Lord, we ask You to comfort the family of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson. Amen.
He was clearly speaking of the Senators having their resolve united, their spirits as one, etc. Nor did he ever pray, as you falsely claimed, to "earth" or "sky". Why do you feel the need to lie about what he said, especially since it is so easily shown to be a lie?
3) I agree that idolatry is "legal" by Amerian law, which makes it doubly hard for you to repent, since you find "nothing wrong" with violating God's higher law.
Which is completely irrelevant to anything I said.
4) If Christian chaplains were always free to pray "in Jesus name" then why did Congress agree with me, and rescind the Navy policies that prohibited praying "in Jesus name?" See here: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52227
Because such meaningless pandering to the ignorant helps win elections. Let me quote your former boss, who made it quite clear:
He was not court martialed for praying in Jesus' name. I sent him out in uniform every week to pray at various ceremonies and functions. He always prayed in uniform and in Jesus' name. He was never told that he could not pray in Jesus' name. In fact, the issue of prayer had nothing at all to do with his dismissal from the Navy. He disobeyed the lawful order of a senior officer. I am sure that you understand that Navy Regulations forbid any of us, regardless of rank or position, to appear in uniform in support of any political or partisan event...He appeared in direct support of a political event, demonstrating contempt for the order of his Commanding Officer and Naval Regulations that we all swear that we will abide by.... The ex-chaplain is a man without honor and you have accepted his story and in doing so you have had 'the wool pulled over your eyes.'
Not much wiggle room in there.
5) Had the Pavkovics simply said "Amen" to the Hindu prayer, they'd have been viewed as "supportive" and never arrested. Admit that, at least.
Had they just said amen, it wouldn't have been disruptive. But they yelled their prayers out in an attempt to drown him out. We've all seen the video, for crying out loud, we know what happened. It's the attempt to disrupt the event that led to their punishment. When you claim that they were arrested for the content of their words you are simply lying. And you know it.
6) Credible academic sources (including this PhD at Berkeley) cite a 1907 historical book of George Washington's prayers, including the one I cited. Do you disagree with academically supported historian? http://jagger.me.berkeley.edu/~lawton/gwprayer.html
Ah Gordon, you are really a hoot. Let's take a look at your "credible academic source" that you claim is an "academicalyl supported historian". The page you cited was put up by Lawton Lee. He does indeed have a PhD; it's in aerospace engineering. He credulously reprints the "prayer journal" and you think this somehow provides support for it being real? Can you name a single actual historian who believes that prayer journal belonged to George Washington? I bet you can't.
When I first came across these claims I emailed Frank Grizzard, a historian who specializes in the life of George Washington and the editor of the Washington collection at the University of Virginia. He said the journal was absolutely not from Washington, and in a 2005 book he showed handwriting samples showing that the handwriting ni the journal did not match Washington's at all.
The only reason this journal ever was called George Washington's at all was because a dishonest and greedy auctioneer named Stan Henkel knew that it would sell at a much higher price if it was said to belong to Washington rather than one of his descendants. He was right. But even before he sold it for a handsome price with his dishonest marketing, the Smithsonian had already informed him that the journal was not Washington's. It appears that Mr. Klingenschmitt's lack of honesty mirrors that of Henkel.
7) More likely, you're a historical-revisionist. You don't want George Washington to be a Christian, so you waive a magic wand and pretend he isn't.
A completely substanceless response. I have written many essays examining the evidence concerning Washington's beliefs, as has my friend Jon Rowe, with whom I am in complete agreement. We both agree entirely with Gregg Frazer, a Christian historian, who correctly classifies Washington as neither a Christian nor a deist but rather as a "theistic rationalist." He was a unitarian and a universalist, believing strongly in one God but rejecting most orthodox Christian views of that god.
8) But you cannot refute Americas founding fathers were CHRISTIANS, NOT DEISTS as well documented in this history book from the mid 1800's, which you can only ignore, but cannot dispute: https://www.americanvision.org/wm/
Spoken like someone ignorant enough to believe that Christian and deist are the only two possibilities. This is the problem I have with revisionists on both sides, both those who claim that the founders were mostly Christians and those who claim that they were mostly deists; they're both wrong. And they're both wrong because they have built up a false dichotomy between those two things and feel the need to shoehorn the far more nuanced and subtle beliefs of these men in to one of those two simple categories.
There were many orthodox Christians among the founders (Samuel Adams, John Witherspoon, Patrick Henry). There were deists among them (Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen). And there were those whose views don't fit neatly into either of those two groups, particularly the leading founders (Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin). Speaking of that leading group, Frazer writes:
Although affiliated with various denominations, the major founders did not typically hold to the beliefs officially espoused by their denominations. Similarly, while Franklin and Jefferson are regularly listed as deists, they did not believe in the fundamental tenets of deism. The key founders shared a common belief which might be called theistic rationalism. Theistic rationalism was a hybrid, mixing elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, with rationalism as the predominant element. Accordingly, the founders believed in a benevolent, active, and unitary God who intervenes in human affairs. Consequently, they believed that prayers are heard and effectual. They believed that the key factor in serving God is living a good and moral life, that promotion of morality is central to the value of religion, and that the morality engendered by religion is indispensable to society. Because virtually all religions promote morality, they believed that most religious traditions are valid and lead to the same God.Though theistic rationalists did not believe that Jesus was God, they considered him a great moral teacher and held a higher view of him than did deists. They believed in a personal after-life in which the wicked will be temporarily punished and the good experience happiness forever. Although they believed that God primarily revealed himself through nature, they believed that some written revelation was legitimate. Finally, while they believed that reason and revelation generally agree with each other, theistic rationalists believed that revelation was designed to complement reason (not vice versa). Reason was the ultimate standard for learning and evaluating truth and for determining legitimate revelation from God.
Thus they belong neither in the deist camp nor the Christian camp.
ED, STOP YOUR ANTI-CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL REVISIONISM! And your sissy name-calling proves you're far less intellectual than scienceblog.com wishes you to appear.
I think the phrase "sissy name calling" says it all, don't you?
Comments
Well, these Pharisees seem to equate hurt feelings with actual physical harm....
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2007 1:53 PM
Posted by: Narc | July 17, 2007 1:55 PM
Ed writes:
A threat to one's credibility perhaps, but certainly no physical threat.
And one which largely missed the most sinful parts of the city at that, at least as far as the most devastating effects were concerned.
Maybe the Most High God is too busy displaying His wrath on all idolators and "athesists" and can't be bothered with those bearing false witness.
"A man without honor". Man, that's gotta leave a mark.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 17, 2007 2:05 PM
I bet Klingenschmitt will show himself not only to be a liar but a coward as well, conveniently deserting this and the other thread so that he doesn't have to be bothered by inconvenient facts. Kinda like that anti-gay bigot (and WorldNutDaily "hero")that Ed fisked last week.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 17, 2007 2:14 PM
Yow. Ouch. Fisked, flayed open, and eviscerated. I can see the very hide of Klingenschmitt peeled open like the works of a cenobite in the Hellraiser movies.
I've lurked awhile on this board and I can't recall seeing words wielded so, like a rapier in one hand and a scalpel in the other, totally laying open the opposing argument for all to see.
Ed's Part2 was a full-broadsides blast of a post if there ever was one. I don't think the Kschmitt-boat is gonna float after that one.
Posted by: Pistaccio | July 17, 2007 2:54 PM
Based on my 11+ years in the Army, there seem to be two types of Chaplains:
1. Those who feel their job is to minister to the spiritual needs of all soldiers in the unit, and
2. Those who feel their job is to minister to the religious needs only of members of their own sect.
The struggle between those two factions is nothing new, tho it rarely goes as public as this. I couldn't guess as to what the percentage breakdown is, tho personally I encountered for more of the former than the later. The good news is, Type 2 Chaplains tend to be far less well respected (IMX) even by most members of their own sect.
Posted by: bigdamnhero | July 17, 2007 2:59 PM
Ed, you give Klingenchmitt more attention than he deserves. He's a lemming, pure and simple, who's religious beliefs have sent him over the cliff.
Posted by: Keanus | July 17, 2007 3:04 PM
The answer to how can we tell its the wrath of god...
Well, of course, when Gordon tells us so ...
Posted by: George | July 17, 2007 3:13 PM
"But you cannot refute Americas founding fathers were CHRISTIANS, NOT DEISTS as well documented in this history book from the mid 1800's, which you can only ignore"
Let's see, should I believe a history book from the mid 19th century or the words of the men themselves that Ed gracefully provides here....Hm, let me think about that.
Mr. Klingenchmitt: Please find *one* other writing of George Washington *besides* the disputed prayerbook and the correspondence with the Indian Tribe that describes orthodox views about Jesus Christ. (And generic prayers don't count!)
I'll help, Jon Rowe has done it for you:
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2006/08/kerby-anderson-engages-in-historical.html
Posted by: KeithB | July 17, 2007 3:27 PM
Gordon seems to spend an inordinate amount of time bearing false witness. I wonder why? Does he think we won't figure it out? Does he think GOD won't figure it out? Or is this just another case of "It's OK to lie to unbelievers" ??
Posted by: Phil | July 17, 2007 4:00 PM
"Does he think we won't figure it out? Does he think GOD won't figure it out? Or is this just another case of "It's OK to lie to unbelievers" ??"
Yes. This has been another installment in easy answers . . .
Posted by: Dale Austin | July 17, 2007 4:03 PM
If it's "(sic)" after "athesists" it should be "(sic)" after "waive" as well. Though now that I think about it your position does pretty much "waive a magic wand" doesn't it?
JB
Posted by: JB | July 17, 2007 4:48 PM
In Monty Python, there's a giant foot which comes down from the clouds. That's handy. Maybe it's really like that, and God just hasn't been too upset about anything recently.
Posted by: Sastra | July 17, 2007 5:03 PM
Ah yes, I am mortally wounded, fisked to death with Fiskar scissors (as Bruce described, previous blog), stabbed right in the heart by Ed Brayton's loving rebuke, and forever changed by his persuasive theology, so perhaps now I'll convert to Hinduism or Atheism to become more like the "scientists" in this blog.
But then again...perhaps not.
1) The Wrath of the Most High God has already been poured out upon you, not in the hurricanes, but in the mocking demons that reside within your soul. Look inside and see them, if you have the courage, they are all the proof needed, that God has utterly forsaken you.
2) The false gods inside the earth and sky, worshipped by Hindu Zed, are not the Most High God who created earth and sky. Most Hindus worship creation, not the Creator, which proves their damnation, and yours if you fail to worship the Creator alone, through Jesus Christ who wants to forgive your sins.
Consider Rom 1:16-32
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (KJV)
QUESTION: What other passage of scripture could possibly describe both Zed and Brayton at the same time?
3) Thanks for quoting my former boss, who had quite a temper while shouting harassments at me, it's actually quite entertaining, listen here:
http://persuade.tv/frenzy3/ChaplainGetsServed.wma
And yes, he made false statements under oath during my court-martial, which he still can't explain, and never answered my blog questions, here:
http://blog.au.org/2007/04/05/a-matter-of-honor-the-truth-comes-out-about-former-chaplain-klingenschmitt/comments/
There is no dispute that I requested my own court-martial, and dared the Navy to enforce their "lawful" prayer policy against me, which they did, when the Navy judge ruled the order I "disbobeyed" was a "lawful" order.
But there's also no dispute the "lawful" policy upon which he based his ruling (SECNAVINST 1730.7C) was later rescinded by Congress, because the policy of censoring prayers (or forbidding chaplains to pray in Jesus name in uniform) was itself unconstitutional. So I won a great victory in the end, for the rights of other chaplains, at great personal cost to my career.
And 85% of Americans agreed with me, read here:
http://persuade.tv/Frenzy6/DecaturDaily17Sep06.pdf
4) Ed Brayton still cannot dispute my logic, (he admits I'm right), that saying "Amen" to a Hindu prayer is supportive, not disruptive, SO INSTEAD HE CALLS ME NAMES, like liar, or whatever, which reveals his lack of intellect. He can't debate, so he labels his opponents.
5) Even if the Berkeley PhD weren't a historian, (he's still a PhD,) but even if he were in kindergarten he'd remain credible, because he cited two credible early American histories, written by valid historians in 1919 and 1907, both quoting George Washington's prayers at age 20. My own handwriting at age 39 doesn't match my handwriting at age 20, so I respectfully disagree with Grizzard, since the owners of the original prayer book were direct descendants or family members of George Washington, and yes, they personally attributed the prayers to young GW.
Furthermore, GW was Episcopal, and his prayers in that book directly mirror the Episcopal book of Common Prayer, so you can't dispute he prayed just like I quoted him, and YOU CANNOT DISPUTE GEORGE WASHINGTON'S CHRISTIAN FAITH. (Unless you deny and revise history for your own agenda, and bury your ostrich head in the sand, but that proves your techniques remain anti-historical and anti-intellectual).
6) You still do more name-calling than any academic I've read, and that says more about you, than it does about me.
7) "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36 (KJV)
In Jesus name,
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 17, 2007 5:58 PM
Interesting. Mr. Klingenschmitt seems to believe that stamping his feet and repeating something enough times will make it so.
Funny thing, that. Most people realize that this tactic doesn't work by about age three.
Posted by: Elaine | July 17, 2007 6:06 PM
Ah, yes, the "early American" histories that were written more than halfway through our current history as an independent nation. Hint: Subtract 1799 (date of GW's death) from 1919 or 1907. Then explain why someone writing OVER 100 YEARS LATER would have any better insight into Washington's spiritual life than we would today.
Posted by: AnneS | July 17, 2007 6:12 PM
Mr. Klingenschmitt -
If you wish to be taken remotely seriously, I would highly recommend that you set aside your obvious rage and comment coherently. It is very difficult to attempt any response to you, that isn't mocking, when you write in the same manner as conspiracy wackos. Indeed, your web page follows the very same format as that which I have seen on numerous sites that promote the notion that extra-terrestrials have infiltrated our government. When you write like they do, people treat you with the same contempt that nut-jobs so richly deserve.
Of course, that would require that your rantings not be so clearly insane, so I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2007 6:23 PM
Hint: Subtract 1799 (date of GW's death) from 1919 or 1907. Then explain why someone writing OVER 100 YEARS LATER would have any better insight into Washington's spiritual life than we would today.
Hey, it worked just fine for Jesus, right?
Posted by: Coin | July 17, 2007 6:24 PM
The 1919 and 1907 histories were much closer to GW's time than Brayton and Grizzard's 2007 revisionist opinions OVER 200 YEARS OUT OF DATE but credited by you "scientists" as more accurate than earlier histories? Academically responsible Historical Method demands we credit the earliest available historical source, not the latest revisionist opinion, especially when that opinion lacks sufficient proof. On the contrary, can anybody here prove GW didn't pray Christian prayers from the Episcopal book of common prayer, or base his personal prayers on that decidedly Christian book? And if you can't, what's your reason for denying history? Your true motives are not to honor the true history of our founding fathers, but to revise that history for your own anti-Christian agenda. Sad. Don't claim to be a scientist. You're only writing a new theology here, without basis in fact.
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 17, 2007 6:28 PM
"YOU CANNOT DISPUTE GEORGE WASHINGTON'S CHRISTIAN FAITH"
Since you like to appeal to PhDs for authority, most PhDs in history -- the ones in the academy who have studied and written books on GW -- conclude he was not a Christian in the orthodox Trinitarian sense. They either call him a Deist or something else. Drs. Peter Henriques, an historian from GMU, and Gary Scott Smith, Chair of the History Dept. at Grove City College (and one of the most distinguished evangelical historians in the nation) both endorse "theistic rationalist" instead of Christian or Deist to describe GW's creed.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 6:28 PM
You know the people who say religion is just tribalism have a point. How is one a distinguised evangelical historian? Is there a large body in this club? Why not just historian?
Posted by: GH | July 17, 2007 6:37 PM
You seem to agree on the point that you're not allowed to be disruptive during a session of Congress. You seem to think this is of some theological significance when the rest of us think that it's probably just the fact that it's a session of Congress and it's against the rules to be disruptive. Try disrupting Congress during something other than the opening prayer (and, just for kicks, do it with something completely secular like football scores) and see where it gets you.
If I went to see "The Passion of the Christ" and started screaming out verses from the Koran in the middle of it and disrupting the movie, would the theater be anti-Muslim for kicking me out? No, they'd just be anti-asshole and pro-movie.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 17, 2007 6:43 PM
You're wrong, Reverend. You need to go back and take a course on historiography. Those histories are what we call secondary sources. We may give more credit to secondary sources written a few decades after the events described, but not much. A century or so later, when the events described are well beyond the memory of any living person, the secondary sources are only more reliable if they have access to primary sources or secondary sources closer to the event that we no longer have access to. Which sources, exactly, did those TWO WHOLE SOURCES have access to that we don't now? And why were there only two, if, in fact, they were more accurate?
Posted by: AnneS | July 17, 2007 6:44 PM
Quote all the scripture you like, Klingenschmitt. You are a proven liar. Being a pious, Bible-thumping proven liar doesn't improve your status one bit.
Posted by: meatbrain | July 17, 2007 6:47 PM
"How is one a distinguised evangelical historian?"
Religion is a core part of a person's identity. Colleges have been formed and are run according to sets of religious principles. I might call someone from BYU a "Mormon Historian." Gary Scott Smith chairs the History Dept. at Grove City College which is explicitly committed to an evangelical worldview.
One pleasant thing I've discovered and blogged about is that many conservative evangelical and Catholic scholars understand America wasn't founded as a "Christian Nation." Indeed, they've done some of the most important scholarly work showing this not to be the case.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 6:47 PM
Mr. Klingenschmidt: The Bible warns its readers against false prophets and hypocritical Pharisees. It also admonishes believers against bearing false witness.
The Bible also says, "test all things; hold fast that which is good." The truth is an acknowledged good. Your disregard for it both in failing to educate yourself via reliable resources and deliberately misrepresenting the words and actions of others demonstrates your real contempt for the book and its alleged author, despite your claims to the contrary. Such hypocrisy is disgusting, but all too familiar.
Perhaps no one has told you, but a "lie for Jesus" is still a lie and if the God in whom you confess your faith actually exists He will surely hold you accountable for your despicable behavior.
Posted by: Bill Snedden | July 17, 2007 6:52 PM
One more thing: Ed didn't call you a liar because he couldn't dispute your logic. He called you a liar because you told a lie. You were present in the Senate when the prayer was made. You heard what the Hindu chaplain actually said and yet you misrepresented his words not once, but multiple times, even after being shown incontrovertible proof that what you said he said wasn't not the case. That is a lie and therefore you are, by definition, a liar, regardless of Ed's ability to dispute your logic (which is, unfortunately for you, greatly in excess of your ability to obfuscate).
Posted by: Bill Snedden | July 17, 2007 6:57 PM
My own handwriting at age 39 doesn't match my handwriting at age 20, so I respectfully disagree with Grizzard . . .
Rupert Hughes, in 1926, was the first to compare handwriting samples of GW to those in the journal. The samples he used were from GW at age 16 and 25, and he concluded that the handwriting in the disputed book was clearly different. Gizzard, in his recent evaluation, used samples of GW at the age of 20, the exact age he would have been at the book's writing. The results were the same.
...since the owners of the original prayer book were direct descendants or family members of George Washington, and yes, they personally attributed the prayers to young GW.
A little difficult, that, since George Washington had no direct descendants. The book was found in a trunk belonging to Lawrence Washington, a family member. It would be rather hard for anybody to have any personal knowledge that would link the prayers to Washington, since at that time Washington had been dead for over 90 years. Henkel was the only one actually making that claim, not the Washington family.
Since we seem to have your attention, "Chaps" (as dear old Janet F. gets to call you), can you explain to me the logic of claiming that your superiors exercising supervision over your job performance is unconstitutional? Can Tony Snow shoot off his mouth while at a press conference, and skiv off of any consequences by claiming freedom of speech?
I eagerly await your answer.
Posted by: General Zia | July 17, 2007 7:12 PM
Look, we're reasonable, rational people here, aren't we? I think we can all agree that Mr. Klingenchmitt's long-term denial of the One True Pantheon has weakened him and allowed him to be possessed by a demon. Why else would he be ranting against the undeniably true gods like this? But if he continues, he may bring down Thor's mighty hammer (may it always remain shiny) upon our heads.
Posted by: Narc | July 17, 2007 7:14 PM
Sorry, I'm not going to let you off the hook on your revisionist history. Nobody here can refute, citing any credible sources, that George Washington prayed from the Episcopal book of common prayer, and that the quotes in his original prayer book are nearly identical in theology to his personal Episcopal faith, especially at age 20.
The fact that two credible historians, in 1919 and 1907, had access to the PRIMARY DOCUMENTS which they reprinted in their histories, makes them PRIMARY SOURCE HISTORIANS and not secondary sources, like Grizzard and Brayton. All of your revisionist labels of "deist" and "rationalist" cannot erase the Christian foundation of our nation.
I WILL GIVE $1000 TO ANYBODY WHO CAN CREDIBLY REFUTE THE EVIDENCE IN THIS BOOK, THAT OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS, UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, AS PROVEN BY ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CITED BY THIS HISTORIAN FROM THE MID-1800s.
https://www.americanvision.org/wm/
But nobody reading this will dare ccept my challenge, because that would require you actually read history, instead of revise it with your theological (albeit atheist) opinions.
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 17, 2007 7:22 PM
Thats my point, the tribalism idea. Superstious ideas and practices are a 'core' that binds some groups together. Typically the 'core' that they grew up with in most cases.
Posted by: GH | July 17, 2007 7:26 PM
BTW, for an interesting take on the situation from another Navy Chaplain, see http://shamefulchaplain.blogspot.com/search/label/shame.
Posted by: General Zia | July 17, 2007 7:26 PM
"I WILL GIVE $1000 TO ANYBODY WHO CAN CREDIBLY REFUTE THE EVIDENCE IN THIS BOOK, THAT OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS, UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, AS PROVEN BY ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CITED BY THIS HISTORIAN FROM THE MID-1800s."
What do you mean by "refute?" How many factual errors must we come up with. Most books -- even good ones -- written in the 1800s will have factual errors.
I've perused through this one and I remember seeing a few; maybe I'll take a closer look.
BTW: If anyone wants to take Mr. Klingenschmitt up on his challenge, we need not buy the book from American Vision as it has been digitized on google books.
http://books.google.com/books?id=H92keUU_Xy8C&pg=PA11&dq=benjamin+franklin+morris
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 7:29 PM
The "historical revisionist" cry is a little tired.
And Mr. Klingenschmit's claims that those historians who wrote closer to the time of their subject matter are more accurate in their depiction of historical personages and/or events than those who conducted their research long after are simply not (always) true.
History is ALWAYS being revised, as new information and perspectives on old information come to light. Those claims that can be supported with convincing evidence are generally accepted; those that cannot are generally discarded. In this way, good historical research is very much like good science. Indeed, much like a scientist, a historian - who usually begins his or her research with a hypothesis - needs to be fully prepared to have that hypothesis proven false by contradictory evidence.
It is easy to take a saying here, or a quote there, and to make a sweeping judgment based on cherry-picked data alone. The true historian takes in data from ALL sources, including eyewitness accounts, personal letters, contemporary sources, and the objective historical record of actions (to name a few) to paint a COMPLETE picture of the subject.
The preponderance of respected, peer-reviewed research contradicts the stance of Mr. Klingenschmitt. Until he can provide more convincing evidence to support his assertions, the generally accepted view of Washington stands.
Posted by: Bobber | July 17, 2007 7:37 PM
Yo Gordie.
John Adams, Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Send me a private e-mail and I'll give you my address. I'll take a check. Thanks.
Posted by: Martin Wagner | July 17, 2007 7:42 PM
Ladies and gentlemen...we have the new Kent Hovind!
Thanks for the link Jon, but I'm certain Mr. Klingenschmitt's money is quite safe as no amount of evidence can possibly convince him. He'll simply rewrite the facts as blatantly as he's done already. He might as well at least make it a more impressive figure like Hovind did.
This is a very sad man. I feel sorry for him.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 17, 2007 7:44 PM
"Nobody here can refute, citing any credible sources, that George Washington prayed from the Episcopal book of common prayer, and that the quotes in his original prayer book are nearly identical in theology to his personal Episcopal faith, especially at age 20."
Mr. Klingenchmitt rationalizes, obfuscates, and "reasons" badly again. Big surprise.
Just because the prayers purported to be said by Mr. Washington mirror those in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer doesn't mean he really prayed them, or that they really reflected his faith. Maybe they are real *Episcopal* prayers, but that still doesn't say anything about whether 1) GW prayed them or better yet 2) GW really believed what he was saying when he prayed. Sometimes "closet atheists" and doubters mumble prayers along just to avoid harassment from people like you.
In fact, the weight of the evidence says otherwise. But you already know that. Or are trying very hard to deny that.
Moreover, so what if GW happened to be devout at age 20? That doesn't mean he was still devout throughout his whole life. In fact, we know that in his later life he was NOT a devout Christian. Maybe his doubt only came into full flower as he got older. He didn't become president at age 20, now did he?
At age 20, I was still a very deluded practicing Catholic. Now at age 35, I am older, wiser, and very glad to be free of that superstition.
And I notice you never addressed the point that I, I think Ed, and other commenters here made regarding the hypothetical "Amen" said in the Senate chamber: if the protesters had started shouting "Amen" at the time that Zed started praying, they still would have been disruptive and would have been removed from the chamber, even if they had been devout Hindus! But then, you probably already realize that, deep down where the truth occasionally flickers in your brain.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 17, 2007 7:49 PM
I looked through the book by BF Morris. I am glad that we no longer live in an era where historians are expected to peddle hagiographic myths like GW and the Cherry Tree.
Morris' book is that bad.
In today's date and age historians are expected to tell it like it is, even if it dispels belief in "pretty fictions."
Morris entire book is refuted by a few short paragraphs by Dr. Gregg Frazer. And keep in mind this is an evangelical political scientist who teaches at one of the most orthodox Christian colleges in the nation (TMC). The college's President has no qualms about taking Billy Graham to task for suggesting that non-born again Christians might get into Heaven.
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2006/10/frazer-on-bible-and-founding-documents.html
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 7:56 PM
Mr. Gordon,
If you're going to be intellectually honest I think you should be getting your checkbook out now as you've clearly been corrected by many already. Maybe write it out to a science foundation since determining whom of the many who proved you wrong would be a difficult task.
Posted by: Jim McAnally | July 17, 2007 8:11 PM
Gordon Klingenschmitt wrote:
Sadly, I had to evict my inner demons for non-payment of rent. Plus one of them molested my inner child.
Okay, so you don't think he prayed to the real god. But that has nothing to do with the blatant lie you told when you said, "I personally sat in the Senate gallery, witnessing history when a Hindu chaplain prayed to "earth" and "sky" and "spirits" on the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday." That was a lie; Zed did not pray to earth, sky or spirits. When the lie was pointed out you told another lie, dishonestly pretending that his statement about the Senators' "spirits" should be united supported your original lie that he had "prayed to" such a thing. So here's the count so far: first you lied, then you covered that lie with a second lie, and now you're trying to change the subject to an entirely different claim that he wasn't praying to the "real god" - which could be true, but it does not support either of your lies, neither of which you are willing to own up to. This is highly dishonest behavior, Gordon, made all the worse because it comes from someone who postures as a man of God standing up boldly for truth.
You won nothing. The court martial order itself clearly notes that the issue was not whether you could pray "in Jesus' name", but was rather whether you could appear at political events in your uniform. More specifically, it was over whether the order that you not appear at such events in your military uniform was lawful or not; if it was lawful, then your refusal to follow the order legitimately results in a court martial. The military court ruled against you, ruling that the order was lawful and that you willfully violated it. And that had nothing to do with praying "in Jesus' name". The bottom line is that you chose to violate a lawful order from your superior officer and all this talk about praying in Jesus' name is a dishonest attempt to distract attention from that fact.
I call you a liar because you have engaged in lies. And the fact that you continue to dodge is that the people who were arrested disrupted the Senate's proceedings. When you claimed that they were merely praying to themselves, you told a lie. We've all seen the videotape, we heard them shouting out to try and disrupt the proceedings. The content of what they said is absolutely irrelevant. If they had yelled out anything in an attempt to disrupt the proceedings, they would have been arrested. You keep trying to change the subject but you're not fooling anyone.
Yet more lies. First, Grizzard compared Washington's handwriting at 20 years old with the prayer journal; they did not match. Second, your claim that Washington's descendants personally attributed the journal to George Washington is a flat-out lie; in fact, Lawrence Washington, when he turned over the contents of the family trunks to auctioneer Stan Henkel in 1891, specifically told Henkel that the family had taken the journal to the Smithsonian to find out if it was George Washington's journal and that the Smithsonian had concluded that it was not his. Henkel, knowing that the journal was worth far more money if it was alleged to be from George himself, chose to lie about it - just as you have.
As far as the claim that about this being supported by "valid historians in 1919 and 1907", this is yet another lie. The 1907 source was merely a reprinting of the content of the journal and it was published by William Herbert Burk, who was not a historian but was a minister. Burk got permission from Henkel, who had lied about its source, to publish the contents of the journal to raise money to build a chapel. That is a far cry from a "valid historian" confirming the source of the journal.
The 1919 source is a book called George Washington the Christian by William J. Johnson. To claim that this is a "credible historian" validating the source of the prayer journal is - again - just plain laughable. Johnson credulously presumes it to be authentic, just as Burk did before him, both based solely on the word of Henkel, who we already know to be a liar. Now if you actually want a credible historian taking an objective look at the validity of the journal, you can look at a 1926 book by Rupert Hughes called George Washington: The Human Being and the Hero. Hughes put images of letters from Washington in his 20s and the prayer journal side by side; it was obvious to everyone that they weren't even close. Every academic historian from that point on, including Washington Ford, the editor of a full collection of Washington's writings, has recognized that the journal was not from Washington himself.
It's funny, in my last response to you I offered a long, detailed and fairly nuanced argument for Washington being a theistic rationalist rather than a Christian. I've written volumes on the subject including a great deal of detail from Washington's own writings. You've replied to none of it. You seem to think that capitalizing the letters in a claim makes it more true; that's simply bizarre. Washington went to an Episcopalian church, of course, and his wife was a Christian. But Washington himself refused to take communion and was known to his own minister not to be a Christian.
I'm not an academic. And the only name I've called you is liar, which you have of course supported by being a liar.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 17, 2007 8:12 PM
GENERAL GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FIRST ORDERS TO HIS SOLDIERS, AFTER THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, 9 JULY 1776:
"The Hon. Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a Chaplain to each Regiment, with the pay of Thirty-three Dollars and one third pr month--The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives--To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger--The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."
SOURCE: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw050226))
QUESTION: Why would George Washington want a Christian army, with Christian officers, and appoint chaplains to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to all his soldiers?
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 17, 2007 8:12 PM
OK...I've tried to resist, but I have to jump in here.
In 1777, when a change was being made in the Revolutionary army's chaplain system that would potentially have placed many troops under chaplains who did not share their religious opinions, leading to religious disputes, George Washington and his officers objected for the reasons explained in the following letter (emphasis is mine).
To THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS
Head Quarters, Middle Brook, June 8, 1777.
I shall order a return to be made of the Chaplains in Service, which shall be transmitted, as soon as it is obtained. At present, as the Regiments are greatly dispersed, part in one place and part in another, and accurate States of them have not been made, it will not be in my power to forward it immediately. I shall here take occasion to mention, that I communicated the Resolution, appointing a Brigade Chaplain in the place of all others, to the several Brigadiers; they are all of opinion, that it will be impossible for them to discharge the duty; that many inconveniences and much dissatisfaction will be the result, and that no Establishment appears so good in this instance as the Old One. Among many other weighty objections to the Measure, It has been suggested, that it has a tendency to introduce religious disputes into the Army, which above all things should be avoided, and in many instances would compel men to a mode of Worship which they do not profess. The old Establishment gives every Regiment an Opportunity of having a Chaplain of their own religious Sentiments, it is founded on a plan of a more generous toleration, and the choice of the Chaplains to officiate, has been generally in the Regiments. Supposing one Chaplain could do the duties of a Brigade, (which supposition However is inadmissible, when we view things in practice) that being composed of four or five, perhaps in some instances, Six Regiments, there might be so many different modes of Worship. I have mentioned the Opinion of the Officers and these hints to Congress upon this Subject; from a principle of duty and because cause I am well assured, it is most foreign to their wishes or intention to excite by any act, the smallest uneasiness and jealousy among the Troops.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 17, 2007 8:31 PM
I see we're getting a version of the Gish Gallop here.
How surprising.
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2007 8:37 PM
Why am I not shocked to see that this charlatan keeps linking to a KNOWN HATE GROUP! American Vision:
American Vision*
ATLANTA, Ga.
www.americanvision.org
Founded in 1978 by Gary DeMar, one of America's most prominent proponents of Christian Reconstructionism, American Vision produces a wide variety of "educational resources" designed to "restore America's Biblical foundation." Like R.J. Rushdoony, the founder of Reconstructionism (see Chalcedon Foundation), DeMar contends that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation" and that its democracy should be replaced by a theocratic government run by Christians who will strictly impose certain Old Testament prohibitions, including passages they interpret as opposing homosexuality and abortion.
"The Bible is clear on moral issues that are culture-killers: homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and abortion," says DeMar, who is closely allied with D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, where he frequently speaks.
While DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."
Another "long-term goal," he writes elsewhere, should be "the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them."
DeMar is also down on anti-poverty programs. "Nowhere in the Bible is civil government given authority to help the poor by raising taxes on the rich," he insists in the American Vision Web site essay. "In fact, as history shows, the 'war on poverty' became the war on the poor."
DeMar is tightly linked to other Reconstructionists, including Gary North, with whom he co-authored Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't.
In 1993, American Vision helped county commissioners in Cobb County, Ga., pass an anti-gay resolution so strongly worded that it sparked a national controversy. Cobb County Commissioner Gordon Wysong spoke at American Vision's annual fundraising banquet the following year, saying of gay people, "We should blame them for every social failure in America."
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=870
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/hatewatch/item.jsp?hid=1334
Posted by: Michael S. Clark | July 17, 2007 8:37 PM
SOmething written based on primary sources is a secondary source. That is the definition of a secondary source. ANd you answered my other question. Those books did not have access to any sources that we do not have access to today. Ergo, no greater insight and no greater authority. (That's leaving aside all the other issues Ed and others have already elucidated.)
Seriously, Reverend, historiography. Look into it. I'm sure there are good books on it. Maybe Jon Rowe or some other historian can suggest a few.
Posted by: AnneS | July 17, 2007 8:38 PM
Gordon Klingenschmitt:
QUESTION: Why would George Washington want a Christian army, with Christian officers, and appoint chaplains to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to all his soldiers?
You seem to think that a speech Washington made in 1776 as a genreral has something to do with constitutional rights enacted by Congress while he was President over a decade later. It doesn't.
Here's a quick couple of questions for you to chew on: in war, it's the prerogative of the commanding officer of a military force to provide certain services for his troops, correct? Such as providing religious services for his troops (who were - unsuprisingly, as most of them were of British descent - probably close to universally Anglican, Presbyterian or Methodist in religious upbringing), correct? That's exactly what Washington was doing, regardless of the context or office he was doing it in.
Keeping that in mind, what would your thoughts be concerning a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist soldier if they asked for similar consideration from a chaplain of their own faith? After all, the demographics of the country have changed quite a bit since 1776, so I'll wait a bit to see if you have an answer.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | July 17, 2007 8:38 PM
Gordong sputtered:
They don't NEED to refute it: there's no credible evidence that he DID. That's like saying "Nobody can refute that I am the emperor of the universe and I own everything".
1) He has no "original prayer book".
2) There is no evidence that he had any "personal Episcopal faith": that contradicts known, first-hand historical observations about the man.
1) your "historians" are not credible.
2) "The government of the United States is in no sense founded upon the religion of Christianity"
No one is obligated to refute the "evidence", as that "evidence" is no more credible than geocentrism.
I'm Catholic. Oops. (Oh, BTW: you're going to Hell, you heretical bastard: The Pope told me so).
Have a nice day.
Chuck
Posted by: Chuck C | July 17, 2007 8:39 PM
Much as I hate to give him any credit, I think Gish was a cut above this guy: at least ol' Dwayne occasionally made up his OWN bullshit, rather than just repeating that of others (e.g., the bombardier beetle). He gets points for creativity, if nothing else.
Posted by: Chuck C | July 17, 2007 8:49 PM
Gordon,
Ms. Rodda's excerpt from GW's letter answers your question:
"QUESTION: Why would George Washington want a Christian army, with Christian officers, and appoint chaplains to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to all his soldiers?"
GW was a friend to "religion" -- thought society was better off with it than without it -- and had no problem supporting and accomodating the Christian convictions of his soldiers.
That's different than saying GW was a Christian who believed Jesus was the only way to God and wouldn't want other religions in his military.
If Washington had Muslim soldiers he'd have no problem giving them an Imam as Chaplain and telling them to be good Muslims.
As Ben Franklin put it in his autobiography describing this state of mind that supports whatever "religion" the people happen to believe in:
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 8:50 PM
Fascinating. Okay, first, we'll skip lightly over the whole big chunk of scripture It merely emphasizes the fact that Klingenschmitt expects and demands that everyone in the world to conform to his view of his religion.
However...
3) Thanks for quoting my former boss, who had quite a temper while shouting harassments at me
Okay, I listened to it. Your former boss did not shout harassments at you. He did raise his voice somewhat in order to be heard over your repeated demands for something to which you were not entitled - namely, representation while receiving paperwork regarding your charges. (Yes, you were entitled to counsel in regards to the charges - but that is not required in order for you to receive the paperwork. You were not asked to sign anything, agree to anything, DO anything, except receove the papers. The Captain and the JAG officer were clearly trying to get you to go consult with your counsel. You were to busy throwing a fit to listen.) He didn't insult you even once. He quite correctly addressed you by your rank - despite your quite noticable refusal to call him "Sir" or even to answer his direct question - "Do you understand, Lieutenant?" Had I been in his position I would have certainly required you to answer my question with a clear and respectful "Yes, sir!" If you failed to do that, I certainly would have amended the charges to include insubordination and conduct unbecoming an officer. Why do you publicize that audio that so clearly shows you to be immature and unfit to be an officer? After 20 years in the military, I wouldn't put up with that attitude from a brand new enlisted man - much less from a theoretically trained and professional officer who ought to know better.
And yes, he made false statements under oath during my court-martial, which he still can't explain, and never answered my blog questions
You have claimed that Captain Holcomb lied and perjured himself. In the link you provided, the only such item I could find is where you claim the existence of another recording. Captain Holcomb states that IF that alleged recording exists, and IF it contradicts his sworn testimony, then the recording is untrue. I haven't heard this second recording - for some reason you aren't offering that link. But the first recording was clearly brief and clearly trimmed to start AFTER the beginning of the conversation. It would not surprise me to discover that this second recording also left out portions of the conversation.
There is no dispute that I requested my own court-martial, and dared the Navy to enforce their "lawful" prayer policy against me, which they did, when the Navy judge ruled the order I "disbobeyed" was a "lawful" order.
You did indeed request court-martial. That was your right - but since you were found guilty, that probably resulted in increased punishment over what you would have received from "Captain's Mast." While I haven't seen the paperwork on the court-martial, it appears that you were convicted of disobeying a direct order to refrain from attending a political protest in uniform. You were certainly allowed to pray in uniform - but you chose to perform those prayers as part of a political protest. That very act - ATTENDING in uniform, not praying in it - was a violation of a direct order, violation of DoD policy, and conduct unbecoming an officer. Since you were also publically protesting a Navy directive while wearing a Navy uniform, it was also disrespect to a superior officer - the officer who signed the directive. The fact that the directive was later rescinded is irrelevant - it was official Navy policy at the time, and besides, the DoD Directive regarding political activities on Active Duty is still in effect.
4) Ed Brayton still cannot dispute my logic, (he admits I'm right), that saying "Amen" to a Hindu prayer is supportive, not disruptive, SO INSTEAD HE CALLS ME NAMES, like liar, or whatever, which reveals his lack of intellect. He can't debate, so he labels his opponents.
Ed said, correctly, that saying "Amen" at the END of a prayer would not have been disruptive. Your heroes in the Senate Gallery, criminals like yourself, didn't do that - they loudly and intentionally disrupted an official Senate function. The content of their disruption was irrelevant - the fact of their disruption was sufficient to require their removal and arrest. Everyone keeps pointing that out to you, and you keep ignoring it. That's why people call you names - sheer frustration at your inability to look at the facts.
5) about the so called "George Washington Prayer Book" has been amply debunked by others here...and the rest of your tirade is merely more name-calling and scripture-based threats.
The Navy is better off without you.
Posted by: BobApril | July 17, 2007 9:00 PM
Chris Rodda,
Wow. I doubt I could have fabricated a more perfect quote than the one you just pulled out. In fact, it was so good that I had to look it up to verify that it was indeed accurate (which, of course, it was). I tip my hat to you.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 17, 2007 9:11 PM
If Rev. Klingenschmitt is reading this:
Sir, I understand that theologically, you may view omitting Jesus in public prayer as denying Him. This is theologically understandable. But perhaps you are simply not called to be a chaplain representing the entire US Navy.
And on a practical level, you do a disservice to those who want to keep the notion of God and the natural law (or as the Declaration of Independence puts it, the laws of nature and nature's God) in the public square and not exiled from it in the name of neutrality.
Even the late Rev. Falwell, in devising the Moral Majority, saw wisdom in including everyone of like mind, including Jews for instance, at the urging of the very Protestant theologian Francis Schaeffer.
Your current actions thwart the effort of keeping God in American public life, and give good argument as to why the Founders' (and not just the "Deists'") revulsion at sectarianism should be extended to exiling all thought of Him completely.
I hope you'll think, and pray, on this. If the Bible tells you that you must bring a (rhetorical, we hope) sword to straighten out the theological errors of others, then so be it. It's a free country. But in the American polity, you are a disruptive force, and it's for the best that you've been relieved of your duties representing the United States Navy.
Posted by: Tom Van Dyke | July 17, 2007 9:23 PM
An interesting thing I've found in my research about chaplains in the Revolutionary army is that they seem to have been an afterthought. I'm not through with my research yet, but what appears to have happened is that when Washington arrived in Massachusetts in 1775 to take command of the troops, regiments had already formed and they had chaplains. If you look at the Journals of the Continental Congress, it wasn't until AFTER Washington reported a tally of the troops, and their ranks and positions, to Congress that Congress added chaplains to the make-up of a regiment and added the position in the army's pay scale (which appears chaplain-free several times before this). The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Congress hadn't even considered chaplains when planning the army, and then said "whoops...the New England regiments have chaplains." And, of course, George Washington had nothing to do with any of this outside of reporting on what he found was already in existence in New England to Congress.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 17, 2007 9:31 PM
Ed,
I have found you to be absolutely faultless in everything, well almost everything you have said about the founders and religion before (with the exception of there is no mention of god in the Federalist Papers... there actually is, the mention is to Thor, but it is in there).
However here I have to hold you to account. While many people may both practice and ignore specific tenants of their faith, when they claim a faith outright, I think respectful prudence demands we respect their claim (e.g. American Catholics who practice birth control).
So while I can spot you Washington, Adams and Jefferson (Jefferson only for the purpose of brevity), with Franklin he clearly states in his autobiography, that he is a Deist.
And in the spirit of Tom Paine, I have no honest reason to doubt his sincerity, nor to doubt any other's personal claim of revelation of the divine.
Tully
Posted by: Tully | July 17, 2007 9:37 PM
Oh, yes. Klingenschmitt is probably stupid enough to think that he came up with this stuff on his own (and clearly isn't smart enough to do anything more than grab stuff wherever it comes from--context is clearly not important to him).
He's also clearly stupid enough to think that folks around here haven't dealt with his ilk before and the tactics AND arguments he uses.
But that just comes from the spiritual arrogance that his view of God, the world and Christianity is the only view and that he thinks he knows the mind of God. Guilty of the very sins he presumes to judge us for....
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2007 9:44 PM
Gordon,
Still waiting for that email. It'd be nice if you could have my check on the way before the weekend. Thanks.
PS: If it's easier on your cash flow to send two $500 checks instead, I'd be amenable to that.
Posted by: Martin Wagner | July 17, 2007 9:45 PM
"with Franklin he clearly states in his autobiography, that he is a Deist."
If you read his autobiography carefully, he states at a young age he became a thorough deist but soon thereafter gave up such a creed and became something else. That something else is what Gregg Frazer calls "theistic rationalism." It's really a just a softer, more unitarian form of deism. Or it could be viewed as a more liberal, rational form of Christianity.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 9:48 PM
You had me up to that point. Did he affirm that Jesus was the son of God? If not it's kind of hard to accept that sentence.
Your catholic? Why?
I'm guessing the rest of the comment was a joke right?
Posted by: GH | July 17, 2007 9:57 PM
No, I don't think Franklin ever affirmed Jesus as son of God. Rather, in his letter to Ezra Stiles, Franklin stated he doubted Jesus' divinity but thought he was the greatest moral teacher the world had seen. So Franklin was a follower of Jesus of Nazareth -- but as a man, the greatest moral teacher, not as God or the second person in the Trinity.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 10:00 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that Gordie and Jimmy Shirley would get along great?
Posted by: MAJeff | July 17, 2007 10:01 PM
A good example of Washington not being against religion, but supporting ALL religions, is his letter to George Mason, dated October 3, 1785, regarding Patrick Henry's proposed bill for a tax to support religion in Virginia. Now, as most of you here probably know, Henry's bill was for the support of the Christian religion only. So, the Liars for Jesus misrepresent Washington's letter to say that he supported Henry's bill. What they don't tell you is that, in this letter, Washington admitted to Mason that he hadn't actually read the bill, so he didn't know that it was only for Christian denominations, and would obviously have opposed it as strongly as Mason and Madison if he had known this.
In the first paragraph, Washington wrote:
"The bill itself I do not recollect ever to have read: with attention I am certain I never did..."
And then continued:
"...I must confess, that I am not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they profess, if of the denomination of Christians; or declare themselves Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise, and thereby obtain proper relief."
John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, vol. 28, (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938), 285.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 17, 2007 10:03 PM
Tully wrote:
Jon Rowe already gave pretty much the same answer I would have given. Franklin went from a Calvinist as a very young man to a deist to something in between.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 17, 2007 10:05 PM
The orders don't mention Jesus Christ or gospels (just Christian) for that matter he refers to 'Heaven' instead of God. For that matter he didn't make any requirement that the chaplains be well versed in Scripture (only of good character and exemplary lives). Also the appointment of chaplains was the work of the Continental Congress and Washington was carrying out his orders from them. Note that Christian carried two meanings, one meaning being a 'good person' and another being a religious Christian.
If Washington was a religious Christian it is odd that he never in later life took communion.
I would probably classify Washington as religious but not as orthodox Christian. He certainly felt that all citizens, no matter what their beliefs, were equal. As for instance in his letter to the Jewish community of Newport in 1790. (emphasis mine)
http://www.tourosynagogue.org/GWLetter1.phpIn reqards to chaplains in 1777 he also apparently wrote in regards to appointing chaplains at the brigade level instead of the regimental level (regiments usually had people of the same community and belief, brigades had mixed groups)
http://www.jstor.org/view/00435597/di957326/96p0100g/0
(page 494 or page 9 of the actual article, the entire article is interesting reading about Washington's religious views)
Posted by: Erp | July 17, 2007 10:09 PM
Franklin was also open to the possibility that there might be many gods, possibly one big god and a bunch of lesser ones, because, being a scientist, he speculated that there was a chance that there were other inhabited planets revolving around other stars, and each might have its own god.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 17, 2007 10:12 PM
Chris,
Yes, that's a very interesting tidbit about Franklin. Gary North points out that this is proto-Mormonism. And Mormons, because they teach the US's Founding was a Divine Event, actually incorporates some of the Founders' theological views into Church doctrine.
Though, as I understand the Mormons, theirs beliefs do differ from the key Founders' in some meaningful ways (for instance, Mormons believe the Bible is infallible, the key Founders didn't) though orthodox Mormoms won't admit this.
Though I'd say the beliefs of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin are closer to Mormons' than they are to orthodox Trinitarian Christians. (But that's only because Mormons, after the fact, could look to the Founders' beliefs for inspiration.)
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 10:21 PM
I'd love to see Klingenschmitt cite the verses from Scripture that he uses to justify his lies about the contents of Zed's prayer. I guess baby Jesus gurgles with delight when an alleged 'Christian' lies about someone who isn't a Christian.
Posted by: meatbrain | July 17, 2007 10:36 PM
HERE'S ANOTHER GEORGE WASHINGTON QUOTE FOR YOU HISTORICAL REVISIONISTS THAT DON'T THINK HE WAS CHRISTIAN:
From words written to his soldiers at Valley Forge on 2 May 1778, after the terrible winter had drawn to a close:
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of patriot IT SHOULD BE OUR HIGHEST GLORY TO ADD TO THE MORE DISTINGUISHED CHARACTER OF CHRISTIAN. The signal instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all Good."
Source:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1976/jul-aug/edavis.html
For dozens of other Christian quotes by George Washington, please visit this blog (if you dare):
http://persevero.blogspot.com/2007/04/george-washington-christian.html
I found interesting the explaination that he did take communion, up until one priest offended him by demanding he publicly repent of something, so it makes sense thereafter he only did so privately.
Again Ed, I have not lied by any means, and my conscience is clear. Although you disagree, it's obvious to me that praying to "Earth" and "Sky" is the same as praying to the false god spirit inside the "Earth" and "Sky" and so you confuse semantics for deception, but I forgive you.
I've provided ample proof that Washington expressed faith in Jesus Christ, and here he insisted others be converted to faith in Jesus Christ. NOBODY CAN REFUTE THESE QUOTES, so instead you attack this humble messenger of truth.
I've spoken my peace. Your blood is no longer on my hands. I'll meet you all on judgment day, when Jesus Christ will personally sort the sheep from the goats. God have mercy on me, the greatest of sinners. I pray you will also beg for His mercy, in Jesus name, Amen. Surely we all deserve hell, but the humble among us will be saved through Jesus Christ, if we allow Him to rule our hearts.
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 17, 2007 10:45 PM
What a vile, worthless belief system.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 17, 2007 10:47 PM
"I found interesting the explaination that he did take communion, up until one priest offended him by demanding he publicly repent of something, so it makes sense thereafter he only did so privately."
That's not what happened. GW actually did NOT take communion and then after one priest, Rev. Abercrombie, reprimanded him for this, he never went to church on communion Sundays again.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 10:54 PM
Wow. I never expected you to say something so... so human. It surprises me that you would start behaving so humble all of a sudden.
Two sentences later:
Ohhh... I see! How clever you are!!
*rolls eyes*
Posted by: doctorgoo | July 17, 2007 10:58 PM
Gordon wrote:
This is nonsense. You said he prayed to the earth and the sky, but in fact he prayed to the "deity supreme" who inhabits the earth and the sky. How is this any different from the Christian belief that God is omnipresent and lives in all things? It's not at all. You said something really stupid and you're scrambling to cover it up. Now you want to get stuck on the single irrelevant issue of whether George Washington was a Christian and ignore all of the other falsehoods you've been claiming all along. When you said that those three people were arrested for the content of their statements, you were wrong; they were arrested for disrupting the event, and the result had nothing to do with what they said but only with the fact that they yelled it out in order to disrupt things. But you can't even admit THAT, for crying out loud. You still refuse to admit that the "prayer journal" did not belong to Washington and that your "credible historians" were nothing of the sort. You don't have a shred of intellectual honesty.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 17, 2007 11:02 PM
"I've provided ample proof that Washington expressed faith in Jesus Christ, and here he insisted others be converted to faith in Jesus Christ."
You are reading things into Washington's words that aren't there. He's not telling anyone to convert to anything but rather defining "Christianity" as equivalent to "character."
This is what the key Founders believed: The primary purpose of "religion" was "morality" not doctrine (like accepting Jesus as the one true way). And if the ends are achieved, the means really don't matter. Hence, any religion, including Christianity, that yields virtue is "sound" or a valid path to God.
As Adams put it:
"...the design of Christianity was not to make men good Riddle Solvers or good mystery mongers, but good men, good magestrates and good Subjects...."
-- John Adams, Dairy, Feb. 18, 1756
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 17, 2007 11:03 PM
I've spoken my peace. Your blood is no longer on my hands. I'll meet you all on judgment day, when Jesus Christ will personally sort the sheep from the goats.
Yeah, but...what about my check? You'll get that off first, right?
Posted by: Martin Wagner | July 17, 2007 11:05 PM
Born, raised, and confirmed. According to the guy in the tall hat, that means I'll always be Catholic, whether I abide by the teachings of the Church or not. It's called a "character of the soul", if I recall correctly (which I may not). Why? Umm... not to put too fine a point on it, but I didn't know from skepticism when I was 5. So stone me.
Well, assuming you haven't read the news lately, Pope Benedict stated last week that no churches other than Catholic churches are true churches (I believe it was mentioned on this very blog), and the Church has maintained for oh, 2000 years or so that no one outside of it can attain salvation (this means they go to hell). So I guess it's kind of a double-edged joke: both at Fundagelicals' belief that Catholics are damned, and the Catholic belief that the exact opposite is true.
Didn't seem that abstruse to me.
Posted by: Chuck C | July 17, 2007 11:07 PM
What I find disingenious about this whole escapade is the former chaplain's remarks in the January 2007 issue of Proceedings, produced by the U.S. Naval Institute. It it, he advocates "Democratic diversity: Chaplains take turns with layleaders, publicly expressing many diverse faiths." He even labels it quite humbly, "Klingenschmitt doctrine." Further, he states, "The government cannot tell chaplains how to pray (not even in school) nor exclude chaplains who pray 'the wrong way.'" Yet, if the blogs and reports are accurate regarding his comments, the prayer of a Hindu Chaplain violates the First Commandment.
It appears to be fine when when he is trying to defend his own position of praying in Jesus' name, something I as a Chaplain have never had a problem at all four tours I've experienced. I don't conclude prayers in Jesus' name at ceremonial functions but this has been more out of strategy than anything else. I have a role to perform, but I am mindful that I am not the main event. Those events, quite properly belong to the Commanding Officer or the person presiding over the event. If one speaks truth with love, with integrity and compassion for those gathered (in most ceremonial functions, there is usually some form of mandatory attendance)then it is afterwards that one has earned the right to be heard, and it is afterwards that one can talk to people about faith.
Klingenschmitt may claim that he was denied permission to pray on the Senate floor. That is not the same as saying that no one has ever prayed in Jesus' name or that a person cannot pray in Jesus' name in that building. What it simply says, given his reputation, those in charge of assigning people to pray prefer that he specifically does not appear.
One cannot have it both ways. If we want to have Klingenschmitt doctrine of Democratic Diversity, then along with it must come the respect and honor when someone from a different faith says a prayer in the nation's capital. Rather than distance himself from those that disrupted the chaplain's prayer, Klingenschmitt defends their outburst.
There is a reason why he is no longer a Chaplain. His view of his congregation is very small. What appears in my chapel on Sunday mornings is the icing on the cake. The service men and women, their dependants, and the Department of Defense personnel and contractors. That is the congregation I serve. I also serve the Command and obey all the lawful orders. His failure on both parts explains best why is no longer employed by the Navy.
Posted by: MABigelow | July 17, 2007 11:26 PM
Just asking Chuck C just asking.
Honestly I would be hesitant to call such a person a Christian simply because Christ has meaning as a symbolic word. Following Jesus as a man wouldn't seem to be the same perhaps. But maybe it's enough.
Posted by: GH | July 17, 2007 11:41 PM
Technically, the Catholic Church does not, hold that everyone outside of it cannot go to heaven, "one true Church" declaration nonewithstanding. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
What Benedict was saying was that Christ's true presence on earth was manifested within the Roman Catholic Church, which by its very existance offers the means of salvation to all, even to those who may be outside it. Granted, it is still an exclusionary policy, but it is a doctrine that is actually far more liberal than most fundamentalist churches.
Posted by: General Zia | July 18, 2007 12:07 AM
Gordon:
I'll meet you all on judgment day, when Jesus Christ will personally sort the sheep from the goats.
Imagine the greatest being possible. Certainly that would be easy for you and you would quickly identify that as your God. One of the attributes of this greatest being would be forgiveness. Again you would say that yes, your God is forgiving. All you have to do is ask for forgiveness and believe in him. But then wouldn't it be still greater to grant forgiveness even unasked for by an unbelieving person. So either your God will grant me forgiveness or he is not the greatest being possible. Which is it?
I am not worried about going to hell despite being an atheist.
Oh, and Ed is right. They were disruptive and would have been thrown out regardless of the content of their speech.
Posted by: Don | July 18, 2007 12:44 AM
Looks like you got a live one, Ed. :) I'm surprised Klingenschmitt showed up to defend himself in person, but I'm especially surprised by what a hostile, arrogant, ranting loon he turned out to be.
It turns my stomach to think of someone like that in the military, turning what's supposed to be a position of counseling and support into a platform for his own angry, conceited views. I'm glad to know he was drummed out, though I suspect there are others like him still out there.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | July 18, 2007 1:15 AM
Yes, Pharisee...I think it would be best if you DID allow Jesus into your heart.
Because, from the fruits that you show, that is surely not what I see there now.
*sigh*
Posted by: gwangung | July 18, 2007 1:28 AM
Mr. Brayton, I think the religionists are missing a key point here.
In the Senate galleries, no disruptions are tolerated. None. Visitors might get by with a respectful whisper that can't be overheard two feet away, but generally not much more.
Generally babies are not allowed in, for example, because they squall. When the Senate's not in session, you could probably get a little kid in, but I've been present when the doorkeepers refused entry to families with kids who were just a bit too rowdy in the halls, and I've been present when they've tossed women in their best Sunday dresses for whispering too loudly.
It doesn't matter what the louts said, prayer or not. They disrupted the Senate's proceedings. This is a time/place/manner issue. Klingenschmitt is defending those with no manners at all. Strange position for a Christian to take, IMHO.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 18, 2007 6:33 AM
I heard it was a three-step process. Washington refused Christian communion his entire adult life, though I have never found any place that he explained why. When he was president, this caused a stir because everybody was watching him. The local priests visited with the President and asked him to do something, because people were refusing communion when Washington did.
So, on the next Sunday that communion was offered, at the beginning of the communion Washington got up and walked out quietly. Within a couple of months, many were following.
After the second visit from clergy, Washington simply stayed away on communion Sundays. That appears to have resolved the issue, though I've never seen what happened to attendance on those days.
And a thought on the prayer book stuff: Brayton's right about the provenance of the claimed Washington prayer book. One familiar with Washington might worry naturally over any prayer book that closely resembled the Episcopalian (Anglican)prayer books, if it were claimed from Washington. He was educated by Jesuits, and his guiding principles can be found in a list of more than a hundred virtuous pursuits he copied from them, and carried with him for much of his life. They also appear to have instructed him in prayer, which may be part of the reason he was so careful to instruct soldiers not to interfere with Canadian prayers, and why he was so careful to make sure any reference he made to religion, as commander of the army, or as president, was ecumenical enough to not offend anyone. I suspect he confronted religious bias early either in his instruction from the Jesuits, or because of his instruction from them, and he resolved to keep such strife out of his life.
Which gets to the final point we should consider: Washington would have thought the behavior in the Senate galleries absolutely wrong. God wouldn't be able to save the disrupters, had they been under Washington's command.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 18, 2007 6:49 AM
Mr. Rowe, just to clarify a point of Mormon doctrine which you are not quite accurate with, the Mormons do not quite believe in an inerrant Bible. They believe in an inerrant Book of Mormon and a Bible which is inspired but excessively handled by humans. Not that this is better, if you have read the BoM, but there it is.
Articles of Faith #8:
The Articles of Faith
Posted by: Chris Anderson | July 18, 2007 7:38 AM
It could get steep.
Posted by: RickD | July 18, 2007 9:18 AM
Here's a little bit of the liturgy from the Sacrament of Burial as written in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer: "ALMIGHTY God, with whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord..."
OMG!! Spirits! George Washington prayed to spirits!!! He was obviously an evil, abominable pagan!
Posted by: Alex | July 18, 2007 9:31 AM
Posted by: bigdamnhero | July 18, 2007 9:40 AM
Thank you, Chris Anderson, for saying so well what I wanted to say. May I add that, having been brought up Catholic in the fifties, the first clue I got that the bible was NOT infallible, was in gospel doctrine class in a Mormon chapel on a Sunday morning. As I recall, the lesson contained a great deal of detail, citing leading biblical scholars and historians, and including the conflict over Jesus' historical existence.
I had to smile when I read Franklin's quote above, because it did indeed remind me of those classes and my astonishment the first time I heard the 'many mansions' doctrine. Good times.
Note: I'm not Mormon anymore, any more than I am Catholic, although I think both of those religions run like the mafia; once you're in, you're in for life.;)
Posted by: Lorri Talley | July 18, 2007 9:45 AM
Chris,
Thanks. I'm not an expert on Mormonism. I once debate a devout Mormon on the issue of the US Founding and he claimed (or seemed to claim) that Mormoms believed the King James Bible to be infallible. That was a point of contention between us because then I first saw how the Founders' heterodox beliefs could much neater fit with Mormonism than orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.
When I brought up all of the anti-Trinitarian stuff, he would just reply, they were biblical unitarians who just recented the Nicene Trinity which is extra-biblical anyway.
I think the biggest point of contention was in my assertion that they were rationalists who elevated man's reason over revelation. I don't think Mormons believe this.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 18, 2007 10:05 AM
What puzzles me is the cognitive disconnect suffered by these zealots. Somehow, in their minds, if the Founding Fathers had religious belief (specifically Christian belief), then it MUST follow that they founded the U.S. as a Christian nation.
For myself, I'm perfectly willing to concede that Washington (and most of the Founders) had some form belief in god or Jesus--because that doesn't alter the reality that our Founders were also intent on founding a secular mode of government, and that it was important to them to keep religion OUT of government (except inasmuch as religion might improve the character of those in government).
Personally, as an atheist, I'm offended by the presence of official prayers in the Senate at all. But last I looked, there are no Constitutional protections against being offended by other people's beliefs.
Posted by: gary l. day | July 18, 2007 10:17 AM
Gordon:
You do know that George Washington was an active Freemason, don't you? In fact, on his inauguration day, the oath he took was administered by the Grand Master of the Masonic Grand Lodge of New York. When Washington died, he was buried with full Masonic honors. He has often been pictured and sculpted wearing his Masonic apron.
The Freemasons' mission, according to the website for Biblical Discernment Ministries (http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/masons.htm) is "to enable men to meet in harmony, to promote friendship, and to be charitable. Its basic ideals are that all persons are the children of one God, that all persons are related to each other, and that the best way to worship God is to be of service to people." (Notice the last sentence. IOW, the best way to worship God is NOT by faith alone and NOT by becoming 'born-again'.)
Freemasonry is affilited with Unitarianism.
Not Christian Fundamentalism.
The Biblical Discernment Ministries site thus concludes "...the views of the Masonic religion are in open conflict with Biblical Christianity, so much so that, in our opinion, a knowledgeable and committed Mason could not possibly be a true Christian."
Freemasonry and Christian Fundamentalism do not co-exist peacefully. They are at opposite polar ends of the spectrum. Since Washington was an active and documented member of the Freemasons, do you really wish to continue fantasizing about him as a Christian Fundamentalist when he could not possibly have been both?
Posted by: Linda Parker | July 18, 2007 10:30 AM
Pathetic...just pathetic. Gordon gets caught in numerous transparent lies, and exposed, by his behavior, as a hypocrite and a fraud; and his only response is to run away shouting about how "demons" are gonna mock us all the way to Perdition or something. (And how would he know what those alleged demons plan to do? Does he listen to demons on a regular basis himself? He sure as Hell ain't listening to Jesus.)
All I see here is an overgrown, underdeveloped child, compensating for his weaknesses by threatening to sic his imaginary playmates on everyone who ever made fun of him, won an argument with him, or made him look stupid in any other way.
Grow up, Gordon -- Christianity is more than a cudgel or a tribal identity to hide behind; and the sooner you understand this, the better off you'll be.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 18, 2007 11:39 AM
Thanks for quoting my former boss, who had quite a temper while shouting harassments at me, it's actually quite entertaining, listen here...
A military officer shouted at a subordinate?! That's INCONCEIVABLE!!! Oh, wait, it's the military...
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 18, 2007 11:45 AM
Posted by: mark | July 18, 2007 12:45 PM
Did I miss something, or did Mr. Klingenschmitt just completely ignore every substantive response to him? I'm starting to think that this has gone from "Point out where this guy is wrong because he's intentionally misleading people" to "It's not nice to poke at the crazy person."
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 18, 2007 1:16 PM
Frog said:
"It's not nice to poke at the crazy person."
Very true. But my inner spoiled brat keeps jumping up to say "He poked us first!"
Posted by: BobApril | July 18, 2007 2:13 PM
It's not "nice" to poke at a crazy person; but's sometimes necessary to forcefully remind them that they have a problem, and prod them to admit it and get help -- or at least shut up and take it somewhere else.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 18, 2007 2:48 PM
This man was a disgrace to the armed services and they are well rid of him. His subsequent conduct only further shows how unfit he is as a member of the services and as a chaplain. He slandered the Navy and slandered the chaplains, lying about what they allow and do not allow, and then got a bunch of Congressmen to help in his showboating coverup, which did nothing to change anything in regards to chaplains praying (in Jesus' name or anything else) or change the legitimacy of his conviction for disobeying orders and willfully violating his oaths and duties.
His clearly exposed lies in this particular controversy are simply more evidence against his character.
Posted by: plunge | July 18, 2007 3:05 PM
Klingenschmitt:
I've spoken my peace. Your blood is no longer on my hands.
So now you're God himself, eh? Smashing.
I'll meet you all on judgment day, when Jesus Christ will personally sort the sheep from the goats. God have mercy on me, the greatest of sinners. I pray you will also beg for His mercy, in Jesus name, Amen. Surely we all deserve hell, but the humble among us will be saved through Jesus Christ, if we allow Him to rule our hearts.
If the combination of bloody-minded triumphialism and self-righteousness you're indulging in here is any indication, you'll be there on Judgement Day, all right. Just looking up.
Why religious fundamentalists (of practically any religion) actually continue to wonder why they come off as loons is beyond me; you'd think that they'd eventually understand that the answer to a logical rebuttal isn't to automatically condemn an opponent to the status of an eternal charcoal briquette, but no.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | July 18, 2007 6:11 PM
Well, because otherwise, they'd have to admit they got beat like a drum and have no further ammunition. They are far too filled with earthly pride to admit they could be mistaken, so they just tell themselves they won and will win eventually.
Posted by: gwangung | July 18, 2007 8:13 PM
I see that Mr. Klingenschmitt once again wants to "spin" truth and suggest that I was less than honorable in dealing with him. Yes, I raised my voice at him when he acted like a spoiled child and wouldn't be quiet and take guidance from the LCDR who was trying to explain a legal issue to him. He was rude, insubordinate and totally crossed the line in terms of military discipline. He lies when he says that I knew that he was taping me - I did not know it until I was made aware of it the next day. But that doesn't matter because it was common knowledge that he secretly taped everyone. He was so paranoid that he complained that "they" (?, the Navy, the command?) was intercepting his emails and eavesdropping on him! No, I didn't respond to his foolish attempt to argue with the truth that I stated. I've had enough experience with him to know that arguing with him is like casting one's pearls before swine. He is a very clever liar and he knows how to "push the hot buttons" via the media to agitate well-meaning but gullible civilian Christians. I have heard him brag about that on several occasions. He was a poor chaplain and a poor naval officer who was removed from a ship by an honorable Commanding Officer because Mr. K's conduct and behavior had become prejudicial to good order and discipline. Mr. K knew that he was a loser as a chaplain and naval officer so he tried to cover his incompetence by alleging religious discrimination. He and his self-righteous cronies have attempted to get maximum distance out of that red herring! Mr. K knows how to spin stories and excite well-meaning readers/listeners by telling half-truths and omitting important details from his stories. He knows that he can play on the emotions of people by spinning the truth on such volatile emotional issues as prayer, religion, Jesus and Constitutional freedoms. Let me give you a current example of his unethical handling of the truth. In his recent article about Hindu prayer in the Senate he says: "Congress agreed with 85 percent of Americans (and apparently disagreed with Chaplain Black) by rescinding the bad Navy policy, restoring the rights of Navy chaplains to pray publicly in Jesus' name 'even in uniform.'" Wow! Mr. K states that 85 percent of Americans agree with him and support him. That's a lot of people and there is no doubt that 85 percent of all Americans is a support base that is powerful. But where did Mr. K get this 85 percent number? He got it from a 17 September 2006 article in The Decatur Daily News, a local Alabama newspaper. The following is a verbatim quote from the article: "Military chaplains should have the right to lead public prayers in Jesus' name, according to 85 percent of Daily readers who responded to an online poll. 'Should military chaplains be allowed to lead prayers in Jesus' name during public events that are not religious services?' the poll asked. The results: 182 readers (85.5 percent) said yes and 31 readers (14.6 percent) said no. The two-day poll concluded Saturday. It was unscientific, and people could vote from any location." So, the 85 percent of all Americans that Mr. K claims turns out to be a mere 182 readers of a local Alabama newspaper! I'm sure Mr. K would find some way to explain this away. Nevertheless, this is how he deceives a well-meaning but gullible public. My Deputy Command Chaplain, an evangelical Christian minister from Texas, once commented that Mr. K was the only person he knew who could take 4 truths and spin them into a whopper of an untruth. This is just one example of his unethical handling of the truth. There are many more and they are all documented. He postures himself as a hero of all chaplains and boasts that though he has lost everything he would do it all again for the sake of serving Jesus. What a crock! He said this only after he tried to use intimidation to negotiate with the Chief of Naval Personnel. What he doesn't tell the public is that he wrote a letter to the CNP stating words to the effect of "If you will give me some financial compensation I will drop all of my complaints and will promise not to ever bring anything up in the future." So much for his righteous altruism! He is a selfish, self-centered person who is contemptuous of any disciplined authority figure who attempts to give guidance to his out-of-control need to have things his own way all of the time. Mr. K is quick to warn those who disagree with him that the wrath of God will be their inheritance. It appears that he has inherited some sort of wrath as a result of his disobedience and pride. Let me say that I am a 63 year old retired chaplain who does not have "an axe to grind" with anyone at this stage of my life. However, I do know the truth and now that I am retired I will tirelessly expose the untruth of this particular situation. I fought in Vietnam as a young Marine and I have served God and country with honor and integrity for 33 years of active duty. I have never been asked or forced to compromise my commitment to Jesus Christ and neither has Mr. K. He wanted to do as he pleased and ignore the naval customs and regulations that officers swear to live by. It always amazes me how self-righteous people like Mr. K can never seem to see how far removed they are from the ethics, truth and example of the Jesus who is the Lord of the Scriptures. They seem to think it's okay for them to lie and handle the truth loosely as long as they do it "in Jesus' name." Don't expect anything near the truth from this man. He is a professional malcontent for whom truth is merely an irritant as he wages a crusade that must be won at all costs so that the Godless heathens of the world will not put his God out of business. Imagine that! These "defenders of the faith" have to lie and spin the truth so that their idea of God will not perish. Go figure! And by the way, while you refer to him as an Evangelical Episcopal priest, you should know that he lost his endorsement as a chaplain from that religious body. Oh yes, he says that he voluntarily gave it up but word from other endorsers is that he was given the choice of giving it up freely or having it taken from him. Also, the endorsing body that gave him a new endorsement has recently sent a letter to all its endorsed chaplains informing them that they now realize that Mr. K was to blame for most of his misfortune.
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret)
Posted by: Captain Norm Holcomb, Chaplain Corps, USN, (Ret) | July 18, 2007 10:17 PM
My thanks to Capt. Holcomb for his report. I imagine that clears up any lingering doubts about these issues. Peace to all.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 18, 2007 10:37 PM
That's going right to the top of the page in the morning as its own post. Thank you, Captain Holcomb. Your portrayal of Klingenschmidt's behavior echoes his actions of the last few days here perfectly.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 18, 2007 11:11 PM
Thank you, Capt. Holcomb; and thank you, Ed, for giving his response top billing. We don't just need to know that people like Klingenschmidt lie -- we need to know exactly HOW they lie, in order to detect such lies in the future.
I'd also like to hear Capt. Holcomb's take on recent reports of aggressive attempts by certain Christian sects to indoctrinate US military personnel; but that's another issue...
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 19, 2007 9:26 AM
3) Thanks for quoting my former boss, who had quite a temper while shouting harassments at me, it's actually quite entertaining, listen here: http://persuade.tv/frenzy3/ChaplainGetsServed.wma
Shouting?
You call that shouting?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 19, 2007 9:56 AM