Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Very strong response that says it all. It could use a few paragraph spacers, but otherwise no need to change a thing.

Posted by: Dave S. | July 19, 2007 9:32 AM

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.

Posted by: bigdamnhero | July 19, 2007 10:53 AM

Concur with Bigdumbhero - with all due respect, sir, I think the chain of command was too easy on him. A General Court-Martial and dishonorable discharge (or at least a BCD) would have been much more effective at shutting him up or reducing his supporters - as it stands, he's a bleeding sore on the face of the Navy.
And you need make NO apology for raising your voice - he quite clearly would not have heard you speaking on a normal tone. I still don't understand why he publicizes that clip - it is highly damning to his case.

Posted by: BobApril | July 19, 2007 11:26 AM

Unsolicited advice to Klingenschmidt: don't ask your former superior officer for a letter of reccomendation.

Posted by: QrazyQat | July 19, 2007 1:34 PM

Because of course if you want to know what happened, querying Republican congressmen and holding opinion polls of WorldNetDaily* readers are a much better way to do it than asking someone who was there at the time.

* (Current top headline:
More cases of terrorists 'baking' children cited
Researchers say Muslim history includes cooking human victims)

Posted by: Coin | July 19, 2007 2:54 PM

John,

Well that poll of over 4000 doesn't sounds like the worlds most unbiased poll with responses like: President Bush who says his favorite philosopher is Jesus needs to slap down the Navy. Nor is there any information there showing that it is scientific in any way shape or form and not just another internet poll.

Then we get to the letter, which got 70 of our 535 Congress people to sign. I don't see where though they actually confirm that Klingenschmitt was persecuted or have any proof. Just that someone gave them a letter to sign on to regarding a hot button issue.

As to the Petition, 200,000 people in the US signed it, which is barely half of a percent of the population of California, or if you want to make it look better it would end up being about 39% of the population of Wyoming in favor of it. So I'm not sure where you can get who is on the fringe or not based on that.

Posted by: Halcyon | July 19, 2007 3:16 PM

wow, America is shrinking drastically, call the presses!

Well it must be if 204,070 people represent 85% of the American population. Last I checked 204,070 is only 0.0006% of the population.

Unless of course you can show the specific methodology that demonstrates how the survey is representative of the American population. (leaving aside a petition entirely as it would only be signed by partisans with no proof that the 200,000 unverified signators are a representative sample of a country whose population is an estimated 302,090,000 persons. That's nowhere near the % claimed)

Posted by: Kate | July 19, 2007 3:23 PM

Chaplain Holcomb isn't telling the truth here.

Actually, I think he is. And I think you're relying on someone else's lies.

Given that Gordon has blatantly lied HERE, I would tend to doubt any survey that relied on what he SAID ocurred.

And given that he blatantly lied on the tape that he himself provided, I just don't think that your statement is very credible.

Posted by: gwangung | July 19, 2007 3:35 PM

John,
Mr. K specifically referred to the article from the Decatur newspaper when he stated that"85% of Americans agreed with me" and he says, "read here" and lists the web site: http://persuade.tv/Frenzy6/DecaturDaily17Sep06pdf (you can find the quote in one of his responses above). This is the way he does business and this is how he pulls the wool over the eyes of well-meaning people (and you appear to be one of them). As to your reference to the WorldNetDaily poll, I simply ask "What is the point of that poll?" It is not germane to the discussion, and besides, 4,000 respondees to WorldNetDaily can hardly reflect a reliable sample of "all Americans." Next you cite another of Ks own web site articles, to wit, "We the undersigned represent millions of Americans...." Really? That is merely a statement without force of fact or proof of claim. Also, what the public never learns is that all of Mr Ks complaints listed in that article,(e.g., cited negatively for praying in the name of Jesus, seeking to procure kosher foods for a Jewish sailor, and opposition to quota-driven attendance at a homosexual-led service during Fleet Week" were investigated by various federal agencies and all his allegations were found to be baseless. He initiated 3 investigations against me stating that I had denied him his religious liberties. I was investigated by the Commander Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, by the Equal Opportunity Office in Washington, D.C., and by the
Department of Defense Inspector General's Office. In every case, Mr. Ks allegations against me were found to be without substance. It might surprise you to know that Mr. K. has initiated investigations against every Navy Captain he has served under since the first day he reported to Basic Chaplains School! And in every case, after exhaustive investigations and the consumption of thousands of hours of work, not a single allegation has been upheld.
You referred to another article from Mr. Ks own web site and when I checked it I found that it was a report from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). They report that they collected 203,149 names in a national petition campaign. They probably did and I concede that as factual. I also know what kind of organization the ACLJ is. It is the brain child of Pat Robertson, another religious nut who threatens everybody who doesn't believe as he does with the wrath of God. I subscribed to the ACLJ and it took them less than 1 hour to send me an email asking for money and I continue to get them at the rate of about 1 per day! These guys perpetrate what I call "Chicken Little Fraud" on the general public - "the sky is falling, the sky is falling! Send us some money and we will ask God to not let it happen!"
Your statement, "It does appear from these sources that Holcomb was on the fringe, and Klingenschmitt was supported by the American people," mystifies me. The intent of that statement completely escapes me.
You, like those who buy into Mr. Ks spin of the truth, fail to see the real issue and you get wrapped around the axel with all the half-truths and lies that he generates. Please be advised that I don't give a tinker's damn whether or not Mr. K prays in the name of a totem pole or anything else. In the first place, his very presence defeated the purpose of any prayer because he was more interested in trying to make people believe as he believed instead of making some humble and honest petition to Deity. The simple fact of the matter is that he was insubordinate, unethical, untruthful and contemptuous of the authority of the officers placed in charge of him by the President of the United States. We do take that oath, you know. We were all very lenient with him and we suffered his presence and his foolishness ad infinitum until he finally stepped over the line and we said "enough." He disobeyed the order of a senior officer and he was held accountable for that infraction. He has not been able to "take his medicine" like a man so he remains a whining, untruthful, unethical little boy who insists on holding his breath until he gets his way. He has a hearing before the DC court in September and time will tell what the outcome will be. Again, as for me, I never gave a whit about how he prayed or to whom he prayed and neither did anyone else in the Navy. He has created all this other stuff to camouflage his incompetence as a chaplain and naval officer.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN 9Ret) | July 19, 2007 3:48 PM

Mr. K misunderstood me to begin with - I didn't suggest that 3 of his charges were dropped. What I said was that all 3 investigations and all the charges they entailed were dropped. You know, well-meaning, sensible, rational people can only take so much foolishness and when they see the pattern of idiocy that develops, they cease to waste their time on further inquiry. That's probably why 32 others were never looked into, if in fact that was the case. One of his complaints against me was that I put a sign on the copy machine in our admin office saying, "10 copies maximum by order of CAPT Holcomb." He complained that I did that to infringe on his right to use the copy machine. He just never got the point that I was the ranking officer and that he had to abide by the same rules that all of us had to abide by. Of course, it is a fact that he completely destroyed and burned up a brand new copy machine by making thousands of copies of propaganda that he took to Washington and handed out. Can you imagine a grown man, an officer in the U.S. Navy complaining to the Department of Defense Inspector General that his boss wouldn't let him make but 10 copies of something without further justification?! I couldn't even begin to guess what his other complaints might have been. All I know is that impartial investigators could never find anything true about any of his allegations.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 19, 2007 4:39 PM

Captain Holcomb,

I'm reading the AU blog you launched against Klingenschmitt, and I wonder if you can answer Bruce Johnson's questions, which were never answered by Navy officials.

"Bruce Johnson says: Steve,
I hate spin, just like you do. Yet I'm not naive enough to believe the Navy has their spin too. I want the bottom line truth. So I did a little reading in the Washington Times, which is respected by many, just searching by the word "Klingenschmitt," and three articles I quickly found there may help me get to the bottom of this. Can you answer four simple "yes" or "no" questions, to eliminate spin?

First, did Klingenschmitt file a whistleblower complaint against the Navy prayer policy, including Chaplain Iasiello, as reported on 23 Mar 06? (Yes or no.) Because it does appear Chaplain Iasiello told him not to pray in Jesus name according to the document cited above, and Klingenschmitt blew the whistle in letters to Congress.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060323-123021-4280r_page2.htm

Second, did that Navy prayer policy redefine "public worship" in some way? (Yes or no.) The reason I ask, is that Klingenschmitt really was punished for his sermons, as admitted by the Navy spokesman, but that spokesman said that's "not worship" and so the commander can punish him. Americans United appears to endorse punishing chaplain's sermons, if they agree with this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060706-121650-5058r_page2.htm

Third, did the court-martial judge enforce that same new prayer policy to define "lawfulness" and punish the chaplain? (Yes or no.) Because the judge's ruling cited above seems to quote that policy, when defining the difference between "public worship" and "worshipping in public." I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful order to avoid "worshipping in public" in uniform, especially if the Navy Uniform regulation 6405 [CHAPLAINS. Chaplains have the option of wearing their uniform when conducting worship services and during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to their faith groups].
http://persuade.tv/frenzy6/Klingordrule.pdf

Fourth, did the Congress later rescind that same policy, for which Klingenschmitt was punished? (Yes or no.) Because the Washington Times says "Last year, the Senate specifically cited his case when they voted to overturn the Navy's prayer standards."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070131-112528-8904r.htm

Please answer these questions for me. No spin, just yes or no. Thanks.

If the chaplain was punished for disobeying "lawful" orders based on a bad policy that was revoked by Congress, it seems he's not a criminal after all, and maybe he did sacrifice his career for liberty."

Posted by: John | July 19, 2007 6:38 PM

John;

The insistence on yes/no answers in complex matters such as these is the sure sign of an attempt at-minimally-rhetorical dishonesty.

You are basically asking "is this article true?" A ridiculous question. How about picking some factual statement from one of them and asking about it instead? The honest question would be-"do you agree with the conclusions? and why?" Clearly, folks don't-and they are tellign you why.

Posted by: Dale Austin | July 19, 2007 7:02 PM

John:
Again, you are privy only to what Mr. K tells you and the public. Before the court martial ever convened the judge made a ruling clearly stating that the trial was not about SECNAVINST 1730.7C. Mr. K has a document addressing that issue and clearly stating the facts. He hasn't posted that on his web site. That issue was settled early on and Mr. K wants to discuss it after the fact to muddy the water and obfuscate the real reason he was required to give an account of his disobedience.
Have you read Navy Uniform Regulations? The Regulations say that the uniform may be worn "incident to a worship service." The political gathering that Mr. K attended was not a worship service and the fact that he said a prayer did not make it a worship service. Have you read what the other participants said? They openly admitted that it was not a worship service and that Mr. K was deliberately violating the Regulations and disobeying an order. In fact, they "dared" the Navy to do something about it. You are either a "plant" representing Mr. K or you are incapable of wading through the spin to see the truth. Mr. K has been nothing but an embarrassment to the Navy and the Chaplain Corps. He was treated far more leniently than he deserved and he was permitted to push his unbecoming conduct much further than most would have been permitted. You don't seem to get the point that the issue wasn't about prayer or religion. It boiled down to his unwillingness to conduct himself as an officer and a chaplain. We Navy Chaplains know the truth about this. Have you seen or heard of any other Navy Chaplains agreeing with and showing sympathy for Mr. Ks position? The 1730.7C issue doesn't come into play here - the judge cleared that up early on. We all performed our ministry under 1730.7C just as faithfully as we performed it under 1730.7B. I really dislike calling anyone a liar but anyone who claims that SECNAVINST 1730.7C was the instrument under which Mr. K was court martialed either doesn't understand the Instruction governing ministry in the Navy or is, indeed, a liar. Mr. K wants you to believe that it was germane to case so that he can hope that his conviction will be overruled. It will not. The conviction will stand.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 19, 2007 7:24 PM

BobApril:
Thanks for pointing out "John's" obvious attempt to create "straw man" questions and produce answers to his own advantage and liking.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 19, 2007 8:44 PM

Captain Holcomb,

Again, it appears you are not telling the truth, if you claim that SECNAVINST 1730.7C was not enforced against Klingenschmitt by the Navy Judge. It was.

Read what the Navy Judge wrote:
"Much of the weakness of LT Klingenschmitt's argument is his insistence on reading 'public worship' as that term is used in Section 6031 of title 10, United States Code, and the current Religious Ministries instruction, to mean the same thing as 'worship in public.' It is clear, however, from testimony offered by two chaplains and from the Religious Ministries instruction (SECNAVINST 1730.7C), that 'public worship' is a term of art: it describes a combination of setting, teaching, and interpretation that constitutes a 'divine service.' One who reads a biblical verse or who recites a prayer at The Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park is not engaged in 'public worship,' although he may be worshiping in public...The order was lawful." (Navy Court-Martial Judge Lewis Booker)

(It makes me wonder who the two Navy chaplains were...if you were one of them, it proves you contradict your own testimony today.)

Do you therefore agree that "worshiping in public" is not protected, and should be punished according to SECNAVINST 1730.7C, if done in uniform?

Please also explain Navy Uniform Regulation 6405, which says: "CHAPLAINS. Chaplains have the option of wearing their uniform when conducting worship services and during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to their faith groups."

Either you (and the Judge) were unaware of these Navy Uniform Regulations, or you're intentionally deceving us to protect your institution. So please be precise, and tell whether or not this Navy Uniform Regulation gave Klingenschmitt permission to wear his uniform "during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to their faith groups" such as public prayer outside of chapel.

You never answered Bruce's questions, 1-4.

Is that because you cannot, or because Bruce was correct, that Klingenschmitt really was punished for preaching the gospel in chapel, as the Washington Post reported here?

http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/ChaplainsWashPost30Aug05AlanCooperman.pdf

Do you deny punishing his sermons, or that they were not punished by others?

Posted by: John | July 19, 2007 10:46 PM

Well, "john", it seems like you're here only to attack Captain Holcomb.

You are not interested in the issues.

You are not interested in engaging other people.

You accuse others of not being truthful when you are being mendacious yourself.

You are certainly NOT displaying Christian behavior.

You're just another Pharisee cloaking yourself in self-righteousness that nothing to do with truth, fairness or rightness.

Posted by: gwangung | July 19, 2007 11:22 PM

My name is John Martinez from Texas. I have followed Chaplain Klingenschmitt's story for nearly two years.

Following are the facts of his case, as widely reported by reputable newspapers, citing original sources:

1) In July 2004, Klingenschmitt was reprimanded for a sermon at the memorial service of a sailor who died in a motorcycle accident. The sailor, Klingenschmitt said in a recent interview, was a Catholic, "and I had led him to a born-again experience before he died." In the sermon, he said, he emphasized that the sailor was certainly in heaven and "mentioned in passing" that according to John 3:36, those who do not accept Jesus are doomed for eternity. "My sermon was in the base chapel, it was optional attendance, and it was by invitation. If we can't quote certain scriptures in the base chapel when people are invited to church, where can we quote them?" he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082902036_pf.html

2) In March 2005, Klingenschmitt's commander recommended against extending his tour in the Navy, because of his sermon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082902036_pf.html

3) In December 2005, Klingenschmitt staged an 18 day hunger strike in front of the White House and rallied 70 Congressmen to his aid, so the Navy backpedaled and renewed his contract.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901812.html

4) The Navy investigation confirmed that Captain Carr punished Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sermons, and censored his evening prayers, but sided with the commander anyway.
http://wpherald.com/articles/131/2/Navy-chaplains-complaint-ruled-without-merit/Chaplain-faces-court-martial-for-disobeying-order.html

5) The Navy investigators admitted Klingenschmitt was punished for his sermons, because he quoted "exclusive" Bible verses in the chapel during optional Christian worship. Admiral Ruehe wrote: "In all the material Lieutenant Klingenschmitt has submitted as part of this complaint ... he has not submitted any document that establishes he was required by his church to preach, on that occasion, the particular message he did. Presumably, if his bishop requires him to preach all the Gospels, and he's not required to deliver that particular message on that particular occasion, he was free to choose to deliver a message at the memorial service that, while being true to his own beliefs, could also have commanded the assent of the vast majority of his audience. Nevertheless, Lieutenant Klingenschmitt chose to deliver a message he knew to be, by his own description, "exclusive."
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50821

6) The Secretary of the Navy then issued restrictive prayer policies, SECNAVINST 1730.7C, that pressured chaplains to water-down their public prayers.
http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy2/WashTimes23Mar06.pdf

7) Klingenschmitt challenged that policy by praying in uniform outside of chapel, and was court-martialed for disobeying "lawful" orders BASED ON THE SAME RESTRICTIVE PRAYER POLICY.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52227

8) Before being overturned, the ban prevented military personnel from conducting public prayer in uniform outside of an official chapel or service. After a 2006 court-martial, Lt. Klingenschmitt then led a successful effort to have the ban on public sectarian prayer overturned.
http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy8/WashTimes1Feb07.pdf

9) Last year, the Senate specifically cited Klingenschmitt's case when they voted to overturn the Navy's prayer standards. Yet despite a promise from former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to dispose of his case under the new rule, Lt. Klingenschmitt is still being discharged. "Rumsfeld failed to keep his promises to the Senate," he said. When asked why his discharge is still going forward, Lt. Klingenschmitt said, "The secretary of the Navy is still defending the policy in federal court." [Even after Congress agreed with Klingenschmitt?]
http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy8/WashTimes1Feb07.pdf

10) Here is Klingenschmitt's sworn testimony in federal court, which seems to prove his case pretty well:
http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy7/FinalKlingenschmittVsWinterAsFiled.pdf

Does Captain Holcomb deny that Klingenschmitt was punished for his sermons? Does Captain Holcomb deny Klingenschmitt was punished for praying in uniform? Does Captain Holcomb deny Congress rescinded the prayer policy?

It seems Chaplains now have freedom to pray publicly in uniform "in Jesus name" again, like they did before Klingenschmitt challenged the unconstitutional policy. Perhaps all future chaplains owe him a debt of gratitude.

Posted by: John | July 20, 2007 10:15 AM

Also, I have to remind you that Klingenschmitt flat-out lied about how the Hindu guy had "prayed to spirits," and has had the lie pointed out to him here, and has done nothing to defend, explain, or correct his misstatement of obvious fact. On what grounds do you still consider him credible?

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 20, 2007 10:52 AM

Ed,
What you didn't mention, but is worth bringing up is this area of the "optionally attendance" at the Memorial service. Unless there were two memorial services, my experience as a Navy Chaplain is that they are not optional at all. The CO was there, undoubtedly the XO as well. If the Flag Officer for the group was in town, he more than likely appeared if his scheduled permitted it.

I say this because for the memorials that I did while at Camp Lejeune, whenever there was a memorial service in my battalion (about 750 Marines, a Regiment has 3 battalions, a Division will have 3-4 Regiments, total 15,000 Marines), we coordinated the time with the Division Commander's schedule, we would have the Marine band to play honors, we would have the Public Affairs to tape it so that copies could be sent to families. We would have the fancy Memorial bullitens made up so that families and service members would have copies. The day prior to the service, we would go through the script. The point is that these functions are anything but optional, and ships are no different. Instead of focusing on the matters that would have provided comfort and solace to those assembled, he used remarks that were divisive to the crew and those attending.

Is "Jesus" divisive by nature? It can be at times in cases of clear right and wrong. In many situations, however, it is a matter of interpretation and presentation. Hence, a matter of strategy. Mr. Klingenschmitt could have phrased the memorial in such a way to remind people of the deceased renewed relationship with God, how the important aspects of life should never be put off. Had he taken such a tack, it is after the ceremony, not during, that he would have built credibility with people and would have earned the right to share his faith.

Klingenschmitt has been so concerned about his "own rights" that he failed to see what people want is a chaplain for everyone. If you are a civilian pastor, it is easy to adopt and promote your own viewpoints. It takes a lot more flexibility to work in institutional ministry and be seen as fair to all faiths, even those that profess no faith or are against faith. Had he chosen that route, doubtless he could have been more effective and probably a whole lot more persuasive. People would rather see a sermon than hear one.

Posted by: MAB | July 20, 2007 5:22 PM

Ed Brayton:
I apologize to you for stimulating a long and continued interest in this issue. I will say no more. I know from experience that truth and reason mean nothing to those whose world view is defined by interpretations given by the likes of WorldNetDaily and some self-proclaimed, personal "revelation hot line" with God. Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight and counter false and foolish claims with the truth.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 20, 2007 9:25 PM

Captain Holcomb,

Your response appears full of bitterness, ego, venom, and personal animus, but at least you don't "have any axe to grind."

It seems you're not telling the truth, and from a third-party observer it's pretty obvious you're lying, by your own self-contradictions.

For example,

1) You say: "Mr. K is the only person who made a 'big deal' out of the [being punished for his sermons at the memorial] service. Yes, he was probably told that some of his comments were insensitive. This comes under the heading of 'counseling.'"

But the Washington Post confirmed that his commander punished him in writing for that sermon, and told a Navy board to end his career, as punishment for quoting the Bible in the chapel during optional worship.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082902036_pf.html

So who is lying, you or the Washington Post?

2) You say: "It is the job of senior officers to give constructive criticism to junior officers. Mr. K was too thin-skinned to be taught anything."

But is it the job of senior officers to punish chaplains for preaching the gospel? The Washington Post reports that's highly illegal, and violates the First Amendment, according to a federal law that says military chaplains "may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church" to which they belong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901812.html

So who is lying, you or the Washington Post?

3) You criticize Klingenschmitt's seminary degree, and you mock Pat Robertson and Jay Sekulow, while you highlight your own 6 masters degrees and doctorate degrees, but couldn't all that bitterness and venom just make you a highly educated Pharisee? Your arrogance is surprising, and unchristian.

4) You say: "The chaplain should be there to make the CO's job easier and not there to create problems and difficulties."

But isn't the chaplain's job to quote the Bible in chapel? And how does that make the commander's job difficult?

I found a copy of the Chaplain's sermon, for which he was punished, here:
http://www.persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixHSermonThatGotChapsFired.pdf

What part of his sermon made the commander so angry that he would punish the chaplain for preaching God's word?

5) You admit: "Yes, the Co of the ANZIO did recommend against extending Mr. K on active duty. However, as it turned out, the Navy had abandoned that procedure and the CO's recommendation was of no consequence."

But the Washington Post reports the opposite, that his contract wasn't renewed until TWO DAYS AFTER he began a hunger strike to protest being fired.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901812.html

So who is lying, you or the Washington Post?

6) You say: "Later, when I learned this fact, I and another senior captain told Mr. K that he, along with all other Lieutenants in his category were being retained on active duty. After having been informed of this, he still continued his protests."

But again the Washington Post reports seeing documents (probably emails, which could prove your case if you're not lying), that he wasn't officially informed until TWO DAYS AFTER his protest at the White House.

7) You say: "All he had to do was keep his mouth shut and do his job and he would still be on active duty today. However, against my advice, he insisted on going to D.C. and protesting in front of the White House."

But isn't it obvious, that if he kept his mouth shut, and kept his job, the Navy would never have been forced to rescind the prayer policy which he violated, by praying in uniform and "worshiping in public" outside of "divine services?"

I suppose if Jesus' disciples had "kept their mouth shut" they wouldn't have been beheaded, but nobody would hear their message either, but that's what you Pharisees want.

8) You say: "I told him to be careful or he might get arrested and put in jail." So you admit threatening him with jail, for praying in uniform outside of chapel?

9) You say: He said, 'Good! That would be even better because then I could write a book and sell it to the movies and make a million dollars and never have to work again.'

But that isn't true, is it? He doesn't have any books for sale on his web-site, does he?

10) You say: "No, the Navy did not 'back-pedal and renew his contract.' First, he was not going to be released from active duty."

But the Washington Post reported the Navy did renew his contract very quickly after he announced his hunger strike.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901812.html

So who is lying, you or the Washington Post?

11) You say: Second, officers don't remain in service on the basis of contract renewal. Mr. K's portrayal of this situation is nothing less than a fantasy of his own fabrication.

But the Washington Post reported "On Dec. 22, two days after he stopped eating, the Navy notified Klingenschmitt that he could stay on "indefinitely" in the chaplain corps."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901812.html

So who is lying, you or the Washington Post?

12) You say: No, Mr. Ks sermons were not 'punished by the Navy.'

But Admiral Ruehe's investigation confirmed that his sermons were indeed punished by his commanding officer, because his sermon was deemed "exclusive" of other faiths.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50821

So who is lying, you or Admiral Ruehe?

13) You say: "Saying that his evening prayers were censored is a matter of interpretation and requires that one understand the purose, nature and history of evening prayers at sea." Are you saying his prayers were never censored?

Because the Navy investigation confirmed that Captain Carr punished Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sermons, and censored his evening prayers, but sided with the commander anyway.

http://wpherald.com/articles/131/2/Navy-chaplains-complaint-ruled-without-merit/Chaplain-faces-court-martial-for-disobeying-order.html

So who is lying, you or the Navy investigators as quoted by the Washington Times?

14) The prayer is offered publicly over the ship's sound system and should offer a word of hope, comfort, mercy, etc. to all hands. A trained and sensitive, caring chaplain knows how to do that without compromising anything he believes. I will be the first to say that there is no room in our Chaplain Corps for any chaplain who wants to "shove jesus, Buddha, Mohammed or anyone else down someone's throat."

Amen. But it seems you and the commander were shoving your religion down Klingenschmitt's throat, by enforcing illegal prayer policies against him, to punish him for the content of his prayers and sermons. Why don't you practice what you preach?

15) You say: "The Chaplain Corps was my life for 27 years but I would vote to disestablish the Chaplain Corps in all the services if all we had to offer was 'give your heart to Jesus or you're going to hell.'"

It's apparent you got promoted by watering down your sermons. How many times in 27 years did you warn anybody about hell? If you never did, then you skipped that part of your Bible.

16) You say: "Mr. K constantly said that his bishop and his church required him to pray, preach, conduct worship in a certain way. It might surprise you to know that his own bishop/church did not support him at his trial. In fact, his endorsing agent sent a letter to the judge stating that they had no such requirements of their chaplains as Mr. K claimed. The judge read the letter openly at the trial."

Your quote is suspect, since the chaplain "in fact, submitted to Ruehe a letter from his church expressing its' "grave concern" regarding Carr's "well-documented improprieties" toward "one of our priests. Our agreement with the Navy, and our understanding of the Navy's agreement with us, is that when we endorse our priest to serve in the military that they will be permitted to conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, and provide for the free exercise of religion for service members of diverse religious traditions," wrote Emily A. Grider, the Colorado Springs-based church's registrar.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50821

So you deceive people when you say his church wasn't angry with the Navy, because it appears they were.

17) You say: "The Secretary of the Navy did not issue restrictive prayer policies that pressured chaplains to water down their public prayers."

THIS IS A BOLDFACE LIE. If there was no policy, why was the Secretary of the Navy forced by Congress to rescind his own prayer policy?
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52227

So who is lying, you or the Secretary of the Navy?

18) You admit: "What he said was that if you couldn't pray a sensitive prayer at a public ceremony where attendance was mandatory regardless of one's faith, that you should exempt yourself from that occasion."

So you admit chaplains who pray "in Jesus name" should be excluded from public ceremonies, while favorite access is given to chaplains who water-down their prayers? No wonder Congress rescinded the policy.

19) You say: "Believe me, that would not create a problem because Mr. k is the only Navy Chaplain I know who seems to think this is wrong."

But isn't it true, that 68 other chaplains are suing the Navy?
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54517

So who is lying, you or the 68 other chaplains?

20) You say: "Every chaplain I know would be more than willing to take his place and offer a suitable prayer."

That's sad. Every other chaplain you know is willing to water-down his prayers, and avoid praying "in Jesus name?" No wonder God has abandoned our nation, when His prophets are willing to cave-in for promotion and rank.

How did you get promoted? By watering down your prayers?

21) You say: "Mr Ks conviction had nothing to do with the alleged restrictive prayer policy. He was just as guilty under SECNAVINST 1730.7B as he was under 1730.7C because neither of them had anything to do with his disobedience of a lawful order."

But the Navy Judge Lewis Booker used SECNAVINST 1730.7C as the basis of his legal ruling that "worshiping in public" could be punished as a crime, and that Klingenschmitt should avoid "worshipping in public" in uniform, despite Navy Uniform Regulation 6405 [CHAPLAINS. Chaplains have the option of wearing their uniform when conducting worship services and during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to their faith groups].
http://persuade.tv/frenzy6/Klingordrule.pdf

So who is lying, you or the Navy judge? And why can't you explain 6405, or even admit you violated his rights?

22) You say: "Furthermore, there never was a 'ban preventing military personnel from conducting public prayer in uniform outside of an official chapel or service.' The "ban" has always been on participating in a rally, protest, or political event in uniform."

And yet, his commander conceded in writing, the Navy Uniform Regulation "permits a member of the naval service to wear his or her uniform, without obtaining authorization in advance, incident to attending or participating in a bona fide religious service or observance."
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52227

So is prayer simply "not a religious observance?" Or which one of you is lying, you or his commanding officer?

23) You say: "No, Mr. K did not lead a successful effort to have a (non-existent!) ban on public sectarian prayer overturned. Mr. K made a fool of himself and became an embarrassment to every chaplain who wears the uniform with pride and honor."

Perhaps he became a fool for Christ, to sacrifice his own career so that others may be liberated from oppressive prayer policies. 70 Congressmen cited Klingenschmitt's case before they overturned the Navy prayer policy.
http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy/29Groups.pdf

So who is lying, you or the U.S. Congress?

And again, the Washington Times reported "Last year, the Senate specifically cited his case when they voted to overturn the Navy's prayer standards."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070131-112528-8904r.htm

So who is lying, you or the Washington Times?

24) You say: "And I wonder where you got the idea that "former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld promised to dispose of Mr. Ks case under the new rule"?! No such promise was ever made to Mr. K. If you believe that Donald Rumsfeld made that promise to a Navy Lieutenant then you deserve a T-Shirt award with both yours and Mr. Ks picture on it."

But Secretary Rumsfeld did promise Senator Warner to "not enforce" the rescinded Navy prayer policy against anyone, period, despite the fact you're still today enforcing it against Klingenschmitt.
http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy6/WarnerSpeech2.pdf

So who is lying, you or Senator Warner?

25) You say: "Mr. K probably was counseled but not punished for being insensitive regarding the pluralistic composition of attendees at the memorial service."

But earlier you admitted his commander tried to terminate his career because of the sermon.

So who is lying, you now or you then?

26) You say: "No, Mr. K was not punished for praying in uniform; he was punished for participating in an event of a political partisan/protest nature while wearing the uniform."

And yet his only participation was to say a prayer, not to protest anything, as confirmed by TV News cameras, here:
http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy3/WVECMooreChaps30Mar06.pdf

So again I ask, doesn't Navy Uniform Regulation 6405 permit praying in uniform? [CHAPLAINS. Chaplains have the option of wearing their uniform when conducting worship services and during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to their faith groups].

YOU HAVE NEVER EXPLAINED THIS UNIFORM REGULATION.

27) You say: "Yes, we did return to the guidance of SECNAVINST 1730.7B. I assure you, based on 27 years of experience and living by the Instructions and Regulations that govern our conduct and actions, that the same conclusions can be drawn from 7B as could be drawn from 7C. Personally, I think that returning to 7B could be more restrictive than 7C. But what do I know?"

But you disagree with the U.S. Congress, who rebuked the Navy (and you?) by forcing a return to the previous policy, which never required "non-sectarian" prayers, and never punished "worshiping in public" like the rescinded policy.

So who is lying, you or the U.S. Congress?

28) You say: "Chaplains have always had freedom to pray publicly in uniform. I have been doing this for 27 years and I also pray "in Jesus' name" when it is not inappropriate to do so."

So you admit watering down your public prayers whenever the name of Jesus might offend somebody? Why should the name of Jesus ever be inappropriate for public use?

Perhaps you've read Mark 8:38: "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

29) You say: "The action of Congress regarding 1730.7B and 1730.7C had absolutely no impact on my prayers/ministry and I don't know any chaplain other than Mr. K who says that it did."

Sure, since you've never met a chaplain willing to take a stand, since you admit all chaplains you've ever met are willing to water-down their prayers to get promoted, like you did.

30) You say: "I have tried to be kind and avoid anything that could be construed as an "ad hominem" response to you, John (whoever you are). However, your statement of "Perhaps all future chaplains owe him (Mr. K) a debt of gratitude" really pushes me to the edge of the envelope. In the face of that statement I can only say, "Beam me up Scottie! There's no intelligent life here!"

And yet any intelligent comparison of your contradictory statements proves you are lying through your teeth. Now I really do believe you lied on the witness stand too, bearing false witness against a junior chaplain, just like his tape recordings indicate.

31) You say: "Mr. K got a fair trial, was represented by both military and civilian counsel and was found guilty by a jury of his peers. And be advised that chaplains are not allowed to serve as jurors at a court martial. The jurors were impartial officers from other officer communities."

Yeah, right. Just like Jesus got a fair trial too. If the Judge enforced SECNAVINST 1730.7C, and Congress rescinded that policy, Klingenschmitt should be exonerated and grandfathered back in, under the old policy. That would be fair. But you don't appear interested in fairness, only in personal revenge, as apparent by your promise to hunt him down and work tirelessly to persecute him further, even after you fired him for praying in uniform.

32) You say: "Your attempts to 'retry' his case via this medium is foolish. I know that he received a fair trial and was dealt with very leniently."

BULLSHIT. You crucified this man, bore false witness, stole his pension, and retired in luxury, with his blood dripping down your jaws, and still your hunger to crush him is not satisfied, so you defame him with more lies, which contradict your own Navy investigators, your own commanders, your own newspapers, your own Congressmen, and your own lying self.

You brood of vipers, you den of snakes, you have killed the prophets, just like the Pharisees before you. How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Posted by: John | July 21, 2007 1:21 AM

Hey John:

Titus 3:1 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.

Just saying.....

Posted by: terryf | July 21, 2007 7:24 AM

You brood of vipers, you den of snakes, you have killed the prophets, just like the Pharisees before you. How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Wow, Klngenschmitt thinks highly of himself, doesn't he? That's some Lee Siegelesque sock-puppetry.

Posted by: MAJeff | July 21, 2007 9:07 AM

One last comment -- I knew that I was setting myself up for that last "vitriolic, irrational diatribe" against me. I have put up with this sickness for the last 2 years so I pretty much know what to expect when exposing untruth. There's no point in responding to the above litany of absurd counter claims. For the most part, they are "non sequiturs" as they relate to the points that I made. Just one "for instance" (because it would be too time-consuming to point out all of the logical fallacies in this junior lawyer/junior theologian's responses): When Mr. K told me that he was going to D.C. to protest in front of the White House I said, "I told him to be careful or he might get arrested and put in jail." From this simple word of caution John deduces that "You threatened him with jail for praying in uniform outside the chapel." You have a real problem with reading and understanding what you read. You point out that I said, "'He said, Good!" That would be even better because then I could write a book and sell it to the movies and make a million dollars and never have to work again.'" Indeed, I did say that and it is an accurate quote of what Mr. K said. But then you say, "That isn't true, is it? He doesn't have any books for sale on his web-site does he?" John, (Mr. K surrogate?), how does the fact that he doesn't have any books for sale make my quote of his statement untrue? I didn't say that he had books for sale. I simply stated what his response was. Are you incapable of seeing the disconnects evident in every refutation that you posture? (Gordon, your style shines through all of this so clearly that I find it humorous that you guys are "joined at the hip" in this little exercise in point-counter point foolishness!)
And yes, we are all aware of the letter from Emily Grider reflecting the Evangelical Episcopal Church's reciprocal agreement with the Navy. If you think my "quote is suspect" regarding the letter sent to the judge, why don't you ask Mr. K to give you a copy, put it on his web site or otherwise confirm it? Mr. K, it is obvious that you are in collusion with John (?) as he makes his comments so why don't you confirm the truth of this "suspicious quote?"
But enough of this foolishness! Whether or not John is who he says he is, it is obvious that Mr. K is the author of all the distorted, disconnected arguments that are styled to ensure a pre-determined conclusion rather than arriving at the truth without prejudice, whatever that ultimate truth may be. By the way, in the world of hermeneutics and biblical criticism we call that process "exegesis." It should be applied to every scriptural text before anyone presumes to use it as a basis for daring to preach to others and "speak for God." Of course, legitimate exegesis presumes a prior academic preparation to be qualified for such an important endeavor.
And by the way John (and all the other personalities that you represent), I am so happy that you and Mr. K and others of your righteous ilk no longer have to worry about "my blood being upon your hands." I feel so relieved and I dare to believe that I have performed a humane service in making it possible for you to live and sleep peaceably. Thank you for allowing me to minister to you through this medium! For the record, I acknowledge that I have been warned and I relieve you of any responsibility for the security of my soul.
Your ridiculous responses are akin to a dog barking at a train. And you are definitely right about me demonstrating a bit of an ego because I am justly proud of my education, my promotions, my accomplishments and my many years of loyal and faithful service to God and country. And I have managed to do it all without becoming a federally convicted criminal. Have you ever read anything by the late Flannery O'Connor? She has a great quote in one of her short stories which says, "Anyone who has a good car doesn't have to justify it." Go figure John, because you surely need to develop your reading skills. And finally John, (and the person or persons who are coaching you), don't forget that "the eyes of Texas are upon you" (and other eyes as well). Mr. K was fond of closing his anonymous epistles of threat with the phrase, "I'll be watching you!" By the way, Mr. K has been to Texas on two occasions this month, hasn't he?
And John (?) it's okay to write in someone else's name. There is a biblical precedent for it. Many scholars believe that the author of the Pastoral Epistles wasn't Paul himself, but a pseudonymous author who knew Paul, worked with him and wrote in his name. There are many literary styles and skills that are appreciated by people who enter into intensive dialogue about a variety of controversial topics. By the way, ignorance is seldom appreciated. Furthermore, untruth and lying is never appreciated and sooner or later is identified by thinking people for what it is. John (?), "here endeth the lesson." I don't have the time or patience to educate you further (at least not without tuition). I have spoken the truth and you have responded. I leave it to the intelligence of all who visit this site to sort through what has been said and arrive at their own conclusions. And John (?), since you are so fond of quoting scripture, I want to offer some for you so that you will have a precedent for being merciful to me if I have offended you. I say with Saint Paul, "I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!. . . .I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. (What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool, in this boastful confidence; since many boast of worldly things, I too will boast.) For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!)" (2 Corinthians 11:1; 16-21).

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb,CHC, USN (Ret) | July 21, 2007 11:17 AM

Oh oops, meant to say "Capt. Holcomb", not "Lt. Holcomb". My apologies!

Posted by: Adrienne | July 21, 2007 1:38 PM

Just like the lying coward that he now proves himself to be, Holcomb never addressed the 32 proofs above that he's lying, except to throw a couple more stones and hide behind his deceipt. He couldn't even explain Navy Uniform Regulation 6405, given three chances. I wasn't sure before, but now I'm more convinced than ever that Klingenschmitt was unfairly shafted by Navy brass, including this lying Pharisee Holcomb. In Texas we call that bullshit, and Captain Holcomb is full of it.

John Martinez

Posted by: John | July 21, 2007 3:50 PM

I read the sermon that K. gave at the memorial service. Really, it wasn't much of a memorial service at all. It was mostly K. telling people they would burn in hell unless they accepted Jesus. Scarce mention of the poor guy who died, except to say that he had found Jesus. No wonder Holcomb and others got pissed.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 21, 2007 4:26 PM

Adrienne:
I really didn't care about Mr. Ks sermons or prayers and didn't comment about the content or quality at any time. When he did the memorial service he was not with my command and I was not his supervisor. Throughout this whole fiasco I have never personally criticized his sermons or prayers. When I sent him out every week to pray in uniform I made it clear that I didn't care how he prayed or in whose name he prayed. Even when I got calls from other commands where he had been sent to give support stating that they never wanted him back again I didn't criticize the content of what he had to say. I remember one occasion when he was the duty chaplain and a Navy Chief had died on duty. When the Officer in Charge of that department found that K was the duty chaplain, she called the Commanding Officer of the Base and told him that if K was the only chaplain available to respond to the Chief's death that she preferred to not have a chaplain present. I had members of the Base Chapel ask me to inform them any time K was going to preach or lead a service in the chapel so that they would have prior notice and not attend. I fielded all of these complaints and made adjustments as required but I never criticized the quality or content of his words. You see, I know full well that Mr. Ks problems in the Navy have never been about religion or prayer. His problems have resulted from his unethical and insubordinate conduct as a naval officer.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 21, 2007 4:42 PM

Wow. I wasn't even aware of the 1401 rule, which proves Klingenschmitt had authority to wear his uniform EVEN AT A POLITICAL RALLY so long as he only said a prayer.

Read carefully, paragraph b, as offered by Holcomb himself:

(b) Members of the Navy and Marine Corps, including retired members and members of reserve components are prohibited from wearing uniforms of the naval service while attending or participating in a demonstration, assembly, or activity knowing that a purpose of the demonstration, assembly, or activity supports personal or partisan views on political, social, economic, or religious issues, EXCEPT as authorized in advance by competent authority; or incident to attending or participating in a bona fide religious service or observance.

So you CAN wear your uniform at a political demonstration, even a partisan or political event, as long as you're there only to say a prayer, or conduct any bona fide religious observance. This is more proof Holcomb violated his rights, and the Navy judge railroaded him, enforcing SECNAVINST 1730.7C, the Navy prayer policy the judge said banned "worshiping in public" instead of respecting his rights under Navy Uniform Regulations, which Holcomb here admits authorize Klingenschnimitte to pray in uniform EVEN AT A POLITICAL RALLY.

Captain Holcomb apparently doesn't think prayer is religious.

And again he lies, claiming he never criticized Klingenschmitt's sermons, when just yesterday (on this blog) he said his "Jesus or hellfire" sermon was an embarrassment to the chaplain corps. So that's not criticizing his sermons?

Tell me truly, Mr. Holcomb, is Jesus Christ also an embarrassment to you, since you water-down your prayers, and why is Jesus "inappropriate" for public ears?

But at least you finally admit, Klingenschmitt had permission under Navy Uniform Regulation 6405 to wear his uniform "during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to their faith groups," (even at a political rally) so you must finally disagree with the Navy judge who punished him for "worshiping in public" in uniform.

If you agree with Navy Regulations, why don't you join us, and demand the judge enforce those regulations, and reinstate Klingenschmitt, especially now that Congress has erased that illegal prayer policy, which you must agree was used to punish him for praying in uniform?

Posted by: John | July 21, 2007 6:55 PM

A battle of wits is most unfair when one side is only half-armed.

Posted by: kehrsam | July 21, 2007 11:08 PM

I think these threads have made it abundantly clear who the dishonest one here is Gordon.

Best of luck on that "May God judge between you and me." bit.

Oh, and nice touch on your "disagree"ment with John.

Posted by: Dave S. | July 22, 2007 9:06 AM

Thank you Norm for showing an attitude that I consider so lacking these days...a desire for truth and a willingness to stand for what you know to be true. I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge that you failed in your role as supervisory chaplain when you could not effectiely mentor GJK. I, too, have watched as people who worked for me walked down a path I knew would only led to heartbreak and misery. Prayer, compassion, counseling, and sincere desire to help are not enough when such a person has determined their course. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, how wonderful His mercy. That is what gives me hope for those persons, that perhaps the Lord will use the punishment resulting from their choices to draw them to Himself as he has used my mistakes to draw me closer to Himself. I love David's words in PS 51:6: Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place. (NIV) May God's Holy Spirit reveal the truth of what happened.

Posted by: Retired Ethics Chaplain | July 22, 2007 12:57 PM

Chaps,

It was probably worth pointing out that Gordo's sock-puppet John was really Gordo himself - but I don't think any of the regulars here was really fooled. His logical fallacies were just so blatant that it was easier to refute him that way than to point out how obvious his second identity was.

Posted by: BobApril | July 23, 2007 8:41 AM

John/Gordon began:

Captain Holcomb, Your response appears full of bitterness, ego, venom, and personal animus...

I'd have to say that's laughably hypocritical, coming from the guy who ends the same post with:

You brood of vipers, you den of snakes, you have killed the prophets, just like the Pharisees before you. How will you escape being condemned to hell?

No "bitterness, ego, venom, or personal animus" there, nosireebob (just God's "bitterness, ego, venom, and personal animus," right?).

I'm sure I'm not the only one getting sick of what has become a standard far-right tactic of making hateful and stupid statements to cause anger, then making fun of that anger, pretending it's a character defect, and crying about "persecution." NEWS FLASH: when you lie to people, and/or insult them without good cause, anger is THE perfectly appropriate response, and we have no need to apologize for it. If you can't handle the anger, then stop going out of your way to cause it.

PS to Captain Holcomb: I'm sure you're rightly sick of having to deal with the ever-increasing amounts of shite being slung about by Gordon and his sock-puppets; but we really do appreciate your responses here, and the public need to have this sort of window into the mindset and tactics of evil frauds like Gordon. You're serving your country -- and your Constitution -- by doing this, whether or not it's in your official mandate. Furthermore, the fact that Gordon feels the need to post his drivel here implies that he, at least, considers this an important forum for this debate; and that in turn, implies that you're doing some good by coming here yourself.

How like a serpent's tooth is the ungrateful child -- especially the overgrown kind.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 23, 2007 9:46 AM

John: given that you're defending someone who a) blatantly lied about the content and purpose of a certain public Hindu prayer, b) blatantly lied about an attempt to disrupt the Senate's proceedings, and c) still refuses to admit that he was wrong about either of those issues despite the proof provided by countless sources -- why should we believe you?

Furthermore, your charge of sock-puppetry kinda pales next to Gordon's actions on Wikipedia. Given that Gordon himself has been doing the sock-puppet thing, as the same source you cite acknowledges, why should we take your claims, or your manufactured outrage, seriously? Perhaps Gordon would not have attracted such bad behavior had he behaved more honorably himself.

Finally, when you repeat the tired old assertion that Gordon was "punished" for "praying in Jesus' name," you ignore the fact, repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, that the prayers said "in Jesus' name" were of the most bigoted and bullying sort, regardless of whose name they invoked, and doing that sort of thing in ANYONE's name is wrong. Your obfuscation is just another clear case of justifying dishonesty by tacking Jesus' name onto it, then crying about "persecution" when you're called on it.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 23, 2007 2:32 PM

John/GJK,

Where in my post did I proclaim myself a hero? I simply stated where I was currently serving. Had you not become a Federal convict, you could have had the same privilege of ministering to God's people in ground combat as I am now currently enjoying. However, you unnecessarily disqualified yourself from further service at a time when your nation needed you the most. Every bit of your troubles were completely preventable and totally self-inflicted. That, unfortunately, is the shame that you will have to bear the rest of your life.

As far as the wikipedia site you quoted is concerned, it comes as complete news to me that I am more than one person! Wikipedia decided that without any proof whatsoever while my unit was heavily engaged in combat operations. They neglected to give me the common courtesy of asking for any input from me.

By the way, I routinely pray in Jesus' Name in public and have never had one bit of trouble from either the Chain of Command or from any of my Marines, Sailors, or soldiers.

Posted by: NavyChaps | July 23, 2007 4:17 PM

BobApril,

If the postings were done from military computers, and those computers were linked to the same central hub (i.e., on the same military base), couldn't that produce identical IP addresses? I seem to recall that NMCI funnels outgoing communication through narrow pipelines for many reasons, security one of them, so that the individual workstation becomes a satellite unit of the system for communication into and out of the base hub.

Posted by: Retired Ethics Chaplain | July 24, 2007 6:05 PM

Mr. Ed Brayton,

As President of Chaplaincy Full Gospel Churches Endorsing Agency, current Endorser for Gordon J. Klingenschmitt, I, CH (COL) E. H. Jim Ammerman, US Army, Retired, wishes to put in a rebuttal reference the statement made by Capt. Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret.). Please be informed that CFGC did not issue the statement that "I have informed all our Chaplains that Chaplain K was to blame for most of his misfortune." This is an error on CH Holcomb's part. No such word has gone forth from me, nor anyone in this organization! CH K is currently Endorsed by this Agency in a civilian capacity.

I stand by Chaplalin K, not that he has not made some errors in judgement, BUT because I know how grossly wrong the Navy has acted against Bible-believing Chaplains, as proven in US Court! (They, the Navy went to the CROOKED 9th US Court to secure an over-throw!) I wanted to give Chaplain K the chance to be heard in a US Court - which he was - knowing even if he was - the Navy would go to a crooked 9th Court for a reversal!!!

Sincerely,

E.H. Jim Ammerman, CH (COL) USA, Retired
President of Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches

Posted by: Jim Ammerman | August 24, 2007 12:31 PM

(They, the Navy went to the CROOKED 9th US Court to secure an over-throw!)

Yeah, right -- your guy didn't violate any rules, he just made "errors in judgement;" oh, and the courts are rigged. Did anyone file an appeal on those grounds? If not, why not? If so, what came of it?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 24, 2007 4:23 PM

Jim Ammerman said, "Please be informed that CFGC did not issue the statement that 'I have informed all our chaplains that Chaplain K was to blame for most of his misfortune."

Jim, be advised that it was more than one of your own endorsed chaplains who provided that piece of information.

Jim Ammerman further said, "I stand by Chaplain K, not that he has not made some errors in judgement, BUT because I know how grossly wrong the Navy has acted against Bible-believing chaplains, as proven in U.S. Court!"

So Jim, you apparently released a communication to your endorsees of some sort that mentioned Mr. Ks errors in judgment and they interpreted it and repeated it as Mr. K being to blame for his misfortunes. Surely you don't deny that you communicated something of this nature to your endorsees.

Another thing Jim, how is it that you have Navy Chaplains endorsed by you and on active duty right now? In a report published by The Baptist Press you said, "Nineteen years ago I quit approving people for the Navy because I knew they wouldn't be treated fairly, Ammerman added, noting he made an exception for Klingenschmitt because of his situation." The quote can be found at the following site: http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy8/BaptistPress16Jan07.pdf
If you didn't approve the younger Navy Chaplains on active duty from your organization, who did approve them?
More spin and more obfuscation of truth instead of being forthright and totally honest about the situation. Jim, do you know what you sound like when you use arguments like, "it's the courts' fault, it's the Navy's fault, they are against Bible-believing chaplains, they won't treat him fairly..." Surely you didn't spend all those years in the military and not understand and appreciate the requirement for good order and discipline and obeying those placed in authority over you?! Of course you didn't. You know that Mr. K was wrong and you know that he was punished for disobeying an order and that he was never punished for "praying in Jesus' name." Your statement, "Not that he has not made some errors" may sound benign to some but there is no doubt that you know the full force and scope of those errors. Jim, the truth of the matter just may be that Mr. K provided you with yet another opportunity to criticize the Navy. Of course, this would not be a unique act on your part. Over the course of the entire fiasco, I watched many political opportunists take advantage of Mr. Ks predicament, not to help him or because they believed in his cause, but merely to advance and publicize their own interests. It's best to just tell the truth without trying to deceive or trick folks into "being on your side." And Jim, regarding those 60 or so chaplains of which you speak - I know some of them and served with them. I know them to be fine chaplains and some of them have very valid arguments. However, I don't remember any of them saying that their problems were primarily related to "praying in Jesus' name." Mr. K speaks as if he is in the same category as these former chaplains. He is not. He has been convicted by a federal court for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It does them and their cause a disservice to have his name associated with them in any way. Jim, I am recently retired but I still live in the Norfolk area. It would not be hard to contact me. Please feel free to confront/contact me personally. I would find it a pleasure to share with you 2 years of documentation and very accurate accounts as recorded in Department Head notebooks. If you are an honest and fair-minded man I think that you would have a very different perspective on this situation when considered without all the spin and verbal gymnastiacs designed to evade the truth.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | August 27, 2007 11:08 PM

Last sentence of my post at top of this page says: "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." I had phone calls from 2 of Ammerman's endorsees telling me about the communication re Mr. K that they had received from their endorser. Another of his endorsee's, a young Navy Chaplain stood in my office and recited words to the effect of the quote above. I asked him if he would give me a copy of the communication from Ammerman's organization and he said that he would. He was hesitant to comment when I continued to try to get a copy of the letter/email. I interpreted this to mean that he was somewhat fearful of being connected to the release of such a document. I fully understood that concern so I did not pursue the matter further. When I retired, I had no further occasion to interface with these chaplains. I have found it difficult to understand how we had Navy Chaplains on active duty from Ammerman's organization when Ammerman went on record stating "Nineteen years ago I quit approving people for the Navy because I knew they wouldn't be treated fairly...." As a further thought, I wonder if Ammerman would care to comment on other information provided by several of his endorsees who reported that some of their endorsed chaplains were so disgusted with Ammerman's endorsement of Mr. K that they changed their endorsements from Ammerman's to another ecclesiastical group. Any truth to that Jim, or is it just something that some of your endorsee's thought up on their own?

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | August 28, 2007 10:14 AM

APPARENTLY CHAPLAIN NORM HOLCOMB LIED UNDER OATH ON THE WITNESS STAND TO SELL HIS CHRISTIAN VICTIM KLINGENSCHMITT DOWN THE RIVER. DIDN'T THOSE PHARISEES LIE AT JESUS'S TRIAL TOO? READ FROM THE AMERICANS UNITED BLOG, WHICH HOLCOMB NEVER ANSWERED:

KLINGENSCHMITT TO HOLCOMB: "For example, another recording of your voice (which I emailed to your deputy, and he can verify word for word, totally unedited) proves that you made false statements (under oath) on the witness stand during my court martial. Specifically, you were asked by my lawyer (Q) and you answered (A):

[START COURT-MARTIAL TRANSCRIPT]
Q. Chaplain Holcomb, on 29 March, when you had this conversation with Lieutenant Klingenschmitt, are you aware that that conversation was recorded?

HOLCOMB. I had been told later that it may be-possibly was recorded.

Q. All right. And would it be fair to say that if there was a recording of that event that would be good evidence as to what was said or what was not said during that discussion?

HOLCOMB. It would be fair to say that if there were a recording that says anything other than I've testified, it's not true.

Q. All right. So, your word is better than the-the actual recording?

HOLCOMB. It would be fair to say that if there were a recording that says anything other than I've testified, it's not true.

Q. All right. So, your word is better than the-the actual recording?

[...]

Q. Isn't it true that you never mentioned the Commanding Officer during that conversation?

HOLCOMB. No, it is not true.

Q. Isn't it true that there was never any mention of the words "protest rally" during that conversation?

HOLCOMB. No, that is not true. [END TRANSCRIPT]

KLINGENSCHMITT: Ha! The unedited version of THAT tape recording, proves that you perjured yourself under oath twice, since truthfully on 29 Mar 06 you never mentioned the Commanding Officer, nor did anyone of us discuss any "protest rally" as you falsely told the jury, to send me down the river and save your own skin. Hast not thou read the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness?"

Posted by: Anon | October 4, 2007 5:00 PM

Klingenschmitt accusing Holcomb of bearing false witness? Irony is truly dead.

Also, apparently Klingenschmitt is Jesus, and Holcomb is a priest in a fundamentalist religious sect?

Posted by: Coin | October 4, 2007 6:00 PM

Gordon James Klingenschmitt, refering to himself:

But self-examination is difficult for any man full of sinful pride.

Wow GJK... you really hit the nail on the head when you pointed out your own deficiencies.

Posted by: doctorgoo | October 4, 2007 9:37 PM

Chaplain Norm Holcomb is the quintessential man of God.

As a regular at the Protestant Chapel during the Klingenschmitt years, I frequently felt Chaplain Holcomb's pain. It wasn't fair that he had to deal with "Mr. K". A war was on. The chaplain corps was stretched thin. Good chaplains were making incredible sacrifices, and because of Mr. K's antics Chaplain Holcomb had to ask even more of those good chaplains. They had to fill the gap created by Mr. K's dysfunctionalism and repair the damage. That wasn't fair. It hurt these men and women of God. Chaplain Holcomb felt that, as well as the daily frustration of dealing with Mr. K's immoral antics.

It doesn't surprise me to note that long after Chaplain Holcomb has stopped posting, Klingenschmitt continues to smear him and the Chaplain Corps.

Thank you Chaplain Holcomb. Thank you for your tireless service to military families, sailors and the U.S. We owe you - big time.

Gordon Klingenschmitt, I won't waste my breath reasoning with you. You're a malignant narcissist. You're trouble wherever you go. May God help the sorry fools who are taken in by your glib lies.

As for you sorry fools, please make room for the truth in your lives! During the Klingenschmitt debacle it was my misfortune to participate in a ministry led by one of you gullible mouthpieces. Over and over again I told him the truth, over and over again I offered him opportunities to come to the base chapel and learn the truth for himself, first hand. No, all he did was slander the Navy, slander the U.S. Government and slander the Chaplain Corps. He didn't want the truth, and apparently neither do you.

Shame on you! I know the truth. Spout your lies around me, and I will confront you with the truth. You cannot fool all the people all of the time. Klingenschmitt is a liar, and those who spread his lies are willfully blind ideologues.

The religious right and the "news agencies" that promulgate Klingenschmitt's lies only bring discredit to themselves. Since Klingenschmitt, I've learned to double check everything the WND "reports". No one who reports such disingenuine tripe can expect to enjoy public trust for long. Credibility is valuable. To a believer, truth is not a subjective thing, made to be spun for paltry political gain.

Proverbs 23:23 Buy truth, and do not sell it, Get wisdom and instruction and understanding.

The Truth does matter. It is deeply offensive to know how many people have been fooled by Klingenschmitt's lies. To believe Klingenschmitt's story is to believe that the U.S. Navy's officers are morally bankrupt. This could not be further from the truth. They put up with Klingenschmitt. No one shot him in the back. No one rolled him over the side during the dog watch. No one wrung his neck. That makes every Naval Officer he ever served with a saint!

Posted by: Elizabeth Conley | January 21, 2008 4:34 PM

WOW! I can't believe this is still an ongoing issue. We were underway when all of this stuff was coming down, but we had a heck of a time laughing about klingenschmitt and his antics. What a black eye for the Navy and an even bigger black eye for the Chaplain Corps. Our chaps would hang his head in shame everytime the issue came up.

The only sailors I've come across that need his kind of religion are the ones who are already headed to NJP and are looking for any form of 'life vest' they can find before they go down in a mess of their own making!

Posted by: amphib ldo | August 24, 2008 12:41 AM

I see that Jim, the former CO for GH, has written. Carr, call me. I shall, repeat, shall challenge Jim on this front. Please foward Jim Carr my email at eformationtoday@yhaoo.com ormy phone at 910-324-7565. (CAPT) Jim Carr. Call me. My name is Viking. Veitch. I eat two-by-fours and pass sawdust and eat pine trees and pass toothpickes. Holcomb, u r a son compared to this Warrior when it comes to freedoms. Got it??

Call me, Jim. I will be in Richmond, VA, with GK in the AM.
U screwball, Jim, a loser. I am so sorry that u, a USN Capt was screwed by the CHC-chain. U, Sir, deserved better. I hate the fact that the CHC-chain-of-influence upto to Rhode Island failed u. I am not surprised though.

The CHC-chain-of-influence screwed u over, included RADM Amasshola.

I am most happy that (CAPT) Jim Carr, Skipper of the ANZIO has reported into this blog. We know he was a top-star Skipper. We know he did err with GK. Jim, call ,e./

Call me.

Veitch

Posted by: d. philip veitch | October 31, 2008 10:57 PM

Carr:
Call me at 910-324-7565. My prelim view is that u, Sir, were screwed by the Chaplaincy-chain-of-influence. Ca;; me.
Viking

Posted by: d.philip veitch | October 31, 2008 11:05 PM

Elizabeh

I thought Eddy-the-blogger-in-Chief had buried this worthless set of useless comments. Apparently, he did not. I was getting read to defecate and urinte on the Eddy-Post. Apparently, we need another go-around.

Let's go, although was getting ready to shit and piss on this stupid forum.

Bring it on honey. Let us fight like Warriors. Holcomb, u reading this, let u and I fight. Got It?! My number is 910-324-7565. If I like u, i will answer. If not, oh well.

Let the wars begin NOW!!!!! I want to fight. Hard, fast and often. My nightly and daily dreams will involve kiiling u folks.

Get used to it. K-bars to the throats, up into the jugular and lower heads. Read Homer's Illiad and Odyessey. Into the brains thur the neck. Got it???

Norm, got it. I hate anti-hrists. I am not very christian about it and will not turn my cheek vis a vis Matt 5-7. Rather, will turn your cheek, your's NH, by force, with thrusts into the jugular. I willn turn the chain-of-influences...including RADM Ammassola and CAPT Candy Rash-Prviates, to the losers....thr losers posting here including Lizzie-lass. Liz, quietly stand down. If not, will come after you including NH.

Veitch

Posted by: d. philip veitch | October 31, 2008 11:52 PM

I thought Eddy-lad closed the GK blogsite down. It was a sneering, empty, worthless parenthesis with small value

I was preparing to defecate and urninate (shit and piss
) on the former blogsite once dismissed, compliments of Eddy and his compatriots. I thought old Eddy-boy, a grand intellectual, had the wisdom to bury this turdy-blog. Apparently, Ed loves eating big turds.

Now this stupid blog erupted. More turds with legs and lips, yapping away. OK, let's go. All hands, spread the legs and lauuch your hot turds...compliments of Eddy-turd. Will get in-line to launch my own hot, steamy turd on Ed's worhtless bloggery and pettifoggery. Ahhhhhhh, feel a hot one coming!

Veitch

Posted by: d. philip veitch | November 1, 2008 12:11 AM

Dr. Goo:

No hangover this AM at all, although your point is well taken, to wit, no blogging while sipping...which I proudly do and happily engage. Dr. Goo, what r your issues here? Black Steel Reserve, my good man. So very glad to be retired and able to respond without requirements to get up in AM. Doc Goo, u? Not here.

Let me see what others have said. Let's see. (I actually thot Eddy-anti-Klingensmitt might bury this worhtless, useless, sneering blogsite...I thought it was buried, yet the Nazi-Kremlin-man Eddy has elected otherwise...so I could do my bodily duties on the site upon burial, defecate and urinate at the headstone....but apparently, Eddy wants to continue to fight and blog.)

Veitch

Posted by: d.philip veitch | November 1, 2008 10:33 PM

Dr. McGoo:

No phonecons or emails from CAPT Jim Carr. I did't see Jim's phone no. This blog-forum has my email and phone no. Why not?, from Jim??

I also want a flow-chat on ships, SURFLANT and CINCLANT during Klingenscmitt's time on the ANZO. Said to include the Chaplaincy chain to Rhode Island. Without such, we operate in the shadows and darknesses...where JAGC likes it.

Of couse, Holcomb should, from memory afford us full names and numbers through the chain to Washingon. If not, why not? Norm, spit em' up man, names and numbers.

Veitch

Posted by: d. philip veitch | November 1, 2008 10:51 PM

Veitch, this thread is a year and a half old and nobody's looking at it any more. Put your energy into something worthwhile.

Posted by: Squiddhartha | November 2, 2008 10:52 AM

I guess the hairless girls are standing down. Where is CAPT Carr? This sweetheart appears to have disappeared. As expected. The Ovary-men have disappeared.

Howling here, but not surprised either. Back to slapping my knees and holding my ribs.

Call em the "Ladies Regiment" defending the USN repressions, headed by Lady Holcomb.

Squid-man, am howling here. Let the Ladies come out and courtsey to Men.

Veitch

Posted by: D.Philip Veitch | November 11, 2008 2:23 AM

Ed, the Master and Lord of the Kremlin:

How can u bury a dead forum? Appears this pettifoggery/bloggery matches the foggery of the English Channel during heavy weather. Where are the USN Ladies?

One of your fascistic agents, me, committed to Constitutional free exercise...on the Krelin's terms. Lord Ed, where are the Girls?

It would appear that all losers have laid their squirt-guns down and have sauntered off like Scottish lassies. A good decision for the USN Girls. Carr sauntered off like a lassie, as did Holcomb.

Veitch

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | November 13, 2008 2:09 AM

Appears that the Ladies with unshaved legs and armpits have courtesied off-stage, the estrogen-loaded lassies at the highest levels of the USN?USMCb and DOD.

Concur with the above blogs, to wit, closing it off....burying it.

And I shall enjoy urinating and defecating on the stupid, illiterate, ill-informed, grossly-biased and stupid posts...I have very visual thoughts here, to wit, coiling an hot MRE on this forum. A really hot one! Marines will get it.

Notice how silent this illiterate forum has become. Loser-posters including the owner thereof...whatever his name is, Eddy? Puleeze, Eddy, Kremlin-Meister, Totalarian-in-Chief-Eddy, shut this loser-forum down until there are serious posters here. Thus far, only barking yapperies.

Snore, yawn. The context of the sneering parentheses is closed for thoughtful, reading, and analytical analysts.
Thus far, we have not witnessed that here.

This much, Eddy-boy and fellow-consorts, u humour me. Post away, Girls.

Veitch

Posted by: d.philip veitch | November 20, 2008 12:16 AM