Dispatches from the Culture Wars

After all, taking on Gordon Klingenschmitt in any contest that requires rational thinking is like challenging Stephen Hawking to a wrestling match.

Posted by: WScott | July 24, 2008 9:50 AM

Terri Leo claims that providing such guidelines might lead to a lawsuit; not providing them is going to lead to many such suits - and sooner rather than later.

But in the former instance, it might lead to a lawsuit against her. This way, she's in the clear and some poor school district can take the heat.

Posted by: Dave S. | July 24, 2008 9:52 AM

"Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'In Jesus' Name'"

Why did Jesus want the Appeals Court to ban prayer? Seems like an unusual position to for him to take.

Posted by: Philbert | July 24, 2008 10:12 AM

Philbert: Not really. Remember, Jesus tried to impress upon his followers not to make a big show of praying in public, at least according to one of the gospels.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 24, 2008 10:22 AM

lolz. I've been wondering if you were going to blog this as I've been following the nonsense on the listserv and it was almost too ridiculous to be possible. I really think these people are living in a parallel universe when they can claim, as they do in the press release, that a court has ruled the word "Jesus" is illegal speech. Oh noes, I just said an illegal word!!

Posted by: nicole | July 24, 2008 10:51 AM

How does one get on this listserv?

Posted by: Joey | July 24, 2008 11:23 AM

I predict Mr. Klingenschmuck is going to get a permanent gig as a columnist at the WorldNutDaily.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 24, 2008 11:34 AM

This is somewhat tangential to the topic at hand. But what the heck.

I attended public schools for most of my education. But my senior year of high school was at a Catholic boarding school. It had all the trappings one might expect of such an institution, mandatory mass on Sundays, prayer before meals, pro-life propaganda films, and so on. In public school we certainly had our fair share of problems. But it wasn't until Catholic school that I saw the most outrageous behavior. Like the incident that got our entire football team expelled.

What had occurred that would cause such a mass explosion you might ask? Statutory rape is the answer. Most the team was over 18 and attending the school in order to get their SAT scores up to a point where they could qualify for a sports scholarship. After a game one of the townies, a 15-year-old girl named Pam, offered to take all comers. The resulting gangbang was discovered and that was the end of our football season.

Actually I'm exaggerating slightly, one member of the team was not expelled. Though it wasn't because he didn't try to participate. But evidently Pam had an aversion to Mexicans and he was the one person she turned away.

Seems to me that all those prayers, sacraments, and sermons weren't that effective.

Posted by: Abby Normal | July 24, 2008 11:47 AM

Does anyone know by what civilian duty or position Klingenschmitt is still claiming the title of "Chaplain?" I realize the term is used for more than just the military role - but considering his background, I suspect he is using it purely based on his former service. And being military myself, I am very sensitive to the misuse of our titles.

Ed, perhaps the next time you refer to him on the listserv, you might give him the title of "disgraced former Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt." After all, as long as you're correcting his lies, you might as well correct all of them.

Posted by: BobApril | July 24, 2008 12:17 PM

Yes, I was also surprised at Ed's non-atheist comment. (Although I scanned my memory for a definite statement one way or the other and found none.)

Ed, I'd be interested in hearing your views. (Feel free to close comments if you want, I'm just curious and I don't want to harass you or anything.)

Perhaps you can be the new president of AU when Barry Lynn retires :-)

Posted by: Chris Bell | July 24, 2008 12:23 PM

Ed is a self-described Deist. I say this based on having read his blog for a long time now.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 24, 2008 12:27 PM

Nope. Adrienne is right.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/06/another_blog_meme.php

Posted by: Chris Bell | July 24, 2008 12:41 PM

I, too, was surprised by the 'not an atheist' comment.
However, I have enjoyed and learned from Ed's writing for a couple of years now, so I won't let this shocking revelation drive me away!

So Ed, you come you are a deist?

Posted by: Felix | July 24, 2008 1:43 PM

I've dealt with people like Klingenschmitt on the web over the years and found that it does not good to get into an argument with them that is always irrational and circuitous. My solution is that rather than choosing to not engage them at all is to ask them what I call a "monkeywrench questions". Monkeywrench questions are designed to put their agenda on display in a very quick, and bad light they could not have predicted. Their only choice is to not answer the question (which happens most frequently) or answer it in a way that cuts their argument to shreds. One of my favorites is on the subject of school prayer, and it's one that has never been answered honestly by the christocrats. Next time the issue of school prayer comes up, ask them if they believe a parent has the right to determine the religious education of their children. It will never end well for them, whether they answer or evade because ultimately they don't believe in your right, just their right.

Posted by: Dave Thompson | July 24, 2008 1:46 PM

Ed said once he used to be an atheist but later became a Deist. Didn't say why in any post I've ever seen, though.

Ed has also been bashed by PZ and some of the Pharyngulites for criticizing Richard Dawkins in the past, and because of Ed's stance of encouraging partnerships between believers and atheists in the goal of protecting and promoting the teaching of evolution. Ed has written favorably of theistic evolutionists in the past. And I agree with Ed on all of this, I should add. I guess I'm a "Neville Chamberlain atheist".

Ed actually had a blog post calling PZ a nasty name once(deservedly so, I think). Personally, I find Ed's blog more level-headed and less reactionary than PZ's. I'm also really rather tired of Wafergate. It's become a case of "the cracker that ate Pharyngula!".

Posted by: Adrienne | July 24, 2008 2:49 PM

re: 18 year old crime stats.

The statement quoted originated with William Bennet.

Here's his oped in the WSJ in 1993

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/usadecline.html

describing his book Index of Leading Cultural Indicators published in 1994

Bennett states "But during the same 30-year period there has been a 560% increase in violent crime, " then he adds a table showing figures for violent crime in the US per 100,000 at 16.1 in 1960 and 73.2 in 1990.

This doesn't add to a 560% increase by my math.

The stats quoted seem to be the same as

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystaterun.cfm?stateid=52

which has the violent crime rate per 100,000 rising from 160.9 in 1960 to 731.8 in 1990.

They then peak and DECLINE to 473.5 per 100,000 in 2006

Curiously Bennett understates the rate by a factor of 10 in his table in the WSJ.

And there no telling if the definition used by the FBI in 1960 is the same as in 1990 or 2006

Posted by: david s | July 24, 2008 5:15 PM

This is the same guy who got his underwear in a knot over a Hindu prayer, correct?

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 24, 2008 5:48 PM

Gordon - you are truly a world-class idiot. Ed's record is both consistent and well-recorded here over the past several years regarding his personal beliefs and his position on the bible in public schools. The fact that new readers to Ed's blog are unaware of his position is evidence you've "pinned him to the mat" makes me no longer question whether you are deluded or just plan stupid.

I was going to post a comment about how absurd your even posting crime rates was given your first failing to establish a causal relationship between trends and an event; however I'll pass on that job, I doubt you even understand the terms.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 24, 2008 6:42 PM

Gordon:

"since I've forced Ed to publicly proclaim his belief in God."

The link above wherein Ed states that he is a deist was posted in June 2004.

What exactly is it that have you forced him to do?

Posted by: Felix | July 24, 2008 6:49 PM

OK, so now Ed claims he's a deist who doesn't believe in God. Doesn't that make him an atheist? Ed, I pray you're not losing the good ground we've gained together here, brother.

You either believe in God, or you don't. You're either a deist (one who believes God exists) or an atheist (one who believes God doesn't exist). You don't have to adopt "my version" of God, only God's version of God, since He will judge us both. So I only pray we both agree with Him, and then of course we'll all agree with each other.

Can you say Amen to that prayer, Ed, and at least try to mentally agree with God's version of Himself? He will reveal Himself to you, if you're humble enough to ask him to rule your heart and mind.

In Jesus name,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt

Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 24, 2008 7:15 PM

I so agree with the good reverend chaplain father monsignor rabbi imam monk shaman on this one, sir! The minute we agree with Her, we'll all agree with each other.

Posted by: ildi | July 24, 2008 8:03 PM

Gordon,

"now Ed claims he's a deist who doesn't believe in God"

_Please_ could you show me where he says this?

Posted by: Felix | July 24, 2008 8:10 PM

I wonder if Gordon has yet conceded that GW's "Daily Sacrifice" Prayer Journal is phony.

Washington, by the way never publicly (or, going by the official record of his writings, privately) prayed in Jesus' name. Perhaps if Gordon had GW's tact, he'd still have a job.

Check out Brad Hart's post
examining Washington's God talk when praying for the primary source evidence Washington never prayed in Jesus' name.

Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 24, 2008 9:14 PM

Here is the list of God terms GW used when praying along with the number of times of their use:

"Providence" - 26 times
"Heaven" -25 times
"God" - 16 times
"Almighty God" - 8 times
"Lord" - 5 times
"Almighty" - 5 times
"Author of all Blessings" - 3 times
"Author of the Universe" - 3 times
"God of Armies" - 3 times
"Giver of Victory" - 3 times
"Great Ruler of the Universe" - 2 times
"Divine Protector" - 2 times
"Ruler of Nations" - 2 times
"Particular Favor of Heaven" - 2 times
"Divine Author of Life and Felicity" - 2 times
"Author of Nations" - 1 time
"Divine Being" - 1 time
"Allwise Dispenser of Human Blessings" - 1 time
"Supreme giver of all good Gifts" - 1 time
"Sovereign Dispenser of Life and Health" - 1 time
"Source and Benevolent Bestower of all good" - 1 time
"Power which has Sustained American arms" - 1 time
"Allwise Providence" - 1 time
"Infinite Wisdom" - 1 time
"Eye of Omnipotence" - 1 time
"Divine Author of our Blessed Religion" - 1 time
"Omnipotent being" - 1 time
"Great Spirit" - 1 time
"Glorious being" - 1 time
"Supreme being" - 1 time
"Almighty being" - 1 time
"Creator" - 1 time
"Jesus Christ" - 0
"Salvation" - 0
"Messiah" - 0
"Savior" - 0
"Redeemer" - 0
"Jehovah" - 0

Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 24, 2008 9:18 PM

German Lutheran Rev. Henry Muhlenberg witnessed George Washington share his Christian faith (in uniform) with his troops: "I heard a fine example today, namely that His Excellency General Washington rode among his army yesterday and admonished each and every one to fear God, to put away wickedness that has set in and become so general, and to practice Christian virtues."

Does anybody dispute the historicity of this eyewitness account?

Chaplain K.

Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 24, 2008 11:49 PM

Jon Rowe, here's another one (from your own sources!)

GEORGE WASHINGTON SPEECH TO THE DELAWARE INDIANS, MAY 12, 1779: "I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethren of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. YOU DO WELL TO WISH TO LEARN OUR ARTS AND WAYS OF LIFE, AND ABOVE ALL, THE RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST."

What's that? Educating children about Jesus Christ? IN SCHOOLS EVEN? Yet another proof that Ed Brayton, (deist, atheist, or agnostic, God loves him), stands against GEORGE WASHINGTON'S INTENTION THAT PUBLIC EDUCATION SHOULD INCLUDE AWARENESS OF THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST.

Source:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/01/the_david_barto.html

In Jesus,
Chaplain K.

Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 25, 2008 12:09 AM

Gordon,

I wonder if you realize that you reproduced the ONLY time the words "Jesus Christ" were ever recorded coming out of GW's mouth (in a speech not even written in his own hand). Further, I doubt you are aware of the context: These Indians let it be known that they WISHED to learn the American way of life including the religion of Jesus Christ, and Washington replied with a nod..."you do well to WISH to learn...[my emphasis]." To hear you folks repeat it, GW just out of the blue told folks they should study the religion of Jesus Christ in schools which is not the case.

On the other hand, here are some GW quotes for you to chew on when he spoke to Indians who had NO desire to convert to Christianity. He acted as though their pagan "Great Spirit" God was the same God he worshipped and went so far as to pray to this pagan God!

I now send my best wishes to the Cherokees, and pray the Great spirit to preserve them.

-- TALK TO THE CHEROKEE NATION, August 29, 1796.

I now sincerely wish you a good Journey and hope you may find your [families and] Brothers well on your Return, and that [the Great Spirit above] 55 may long preserve your Nations in peace with each other and with the United States.

-- To THE CHIEFS AND WARRIORS, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WYANDOTS, DELAWARES, SHAWANOES, OTTAWAS, CHIPPEWAS, POTAWATIMES, MIAMIS, EEL RIVER, WEEAS, KICKAPOOS, PIANKASHAWS, AND KASKASKIAS, November 29, 1796.

Source.

Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 25, 2008 12:33 AM

Gosh, Gordo, in reading this entire post I've seen you make bizarre assertions, dubious and outdated claims (easily refuted, see above), and failing to score any points, resort to personal attacks on the author of your current misery. I'll not resort to such attacks on you, though clearly I would have plenty of ammunition on the web to do so.

"What I have yet to see you do yet, however, is to address the central point of Ed's original post:
Having seen some of the material already at use in many Bible courses in Texas, I can only say that the State board of education is being incredibly irresponsible in not spelling out exactly what can and can't be taught in such classes. Local school districts are inevitably going to teach this course in constitutionally dubious ways without such guidance. Terri Leo claims that providing such guidelines might lead to a lawsuit; not providing them is going to lead to many such suits - and sooner rather than later. They are doing the same thing the Louisiana legislature is doing with the recent "academic freedom" legislation, inviting local schools into a "Dover trap." The result is going to be very ugly and very expensive."

You still haven't addressed this point. Perhaps it's because it's so clearly true and you have no valid rebuttal. I can tell you one thing: I'm grateful that no one that I have ever known has had the misfortune of suffering through your ministerial malpractice.

Posted by: Mark C | July 25, 2008 12:41 AM

Ed,

While the topic digresses, it is useful to point out that some years ago, one of the major weekly news magazine ran an article endorsing the the teaching of the Bible in schools. The author's point was much in the vein of E.D. Hirsch, The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, who posited that in order for a person to be literate in society, he or she would have to have a literary knowledge of the Bible. The famous saying, "If God doesn't destroy Hollywood, He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology" doesn't make sense if one doesn't have a passing knowledge of the Bible. He is worth quoting at length.

No person in the modern world can be considered educated without a basic knowledge of the great religions of the world - Islam, Confuciamism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hiduism, Judaism, and Christinaity. But our knowledge of the Judaism and Christianity needs to be more detailed than that of other great religions, if only because of the historical accident that has embedded the Bible in our thought and language. The Bible is a central book in our culture, just as the Koran is the central in other nations, whose citizens need to know more about the Koran than about the Bible. The logical conclusion is that our schools need to teach more about the Bible than about the Koran, but they have a responsibility to teach about both. Far from being illegal or undesirable, teaching about the Bible is not only consistent with our Constitution, it is essential to our literacy. - E.D.H.

I agree with you that if taught in the classes, there has to be strict review procedures. If I as a Christian have differences of opinion with other Christians, what shall we make of those that don't share the same viewpoint? Mechanisms have to be put in place where people can disagree without becoming disagreeable.

The assumption that the removal of state sponsored prayer and the Bible has caused all the ills of society is specious at best and simplistic and deceptive at worst. Students still pray, people still study the Bible in the after hours classes and groups. But people come because they want to, which is what faith is all about.

For all his talk in Navy Proceedings last year, JGK does not really believe in the pluralism he advocated in the article for when the Hindu priest offered a prayer later that year in the Senate, his true self was shown.

What distresses me and the majority of my Chaplain colleagues is that JGK never realized that you can be evangelical in the Navy, but it requires a different methodology. You first have to earn the right to be heard. People have to know that you are going to care for them even when you know they will never adopt your religion or see your point of view. In many cases, the work of an ethical chaplain takes years, many of the results he or she will never be aware of. Earning the right to be heard means that you must be willing to hear all the evidence, even if you disagree with some of the suppositions. Ultimately it comes down to mutual respect. If you come with an agenda already in mind, you are doomed. If you come willing to have a conversation and an honest friendship, then you usually are successful. One of the best reports I received was from a CO who was an acknowledge agnostic but he saw what I did for his men and women onboard the ship. You can have profound differences with people and yet still serve them. It is lamentable that JGK could never and still doesn't figure that out.

Posted by: Michael B | July 25, 2008 2:33 AM

Gordon: you're not a chaplain anymore, so stop calling yourself one at the end of every one of your comments. This lie alone proves you're nothing but a dishonest, self-inflating, delusional fraud. Not to mention an embarrassment to Christians and a disgrace to the US military and the profession of chaplaincy. People like you are the reason why people like me become atheists or Pagans.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 25, 2008 10:03 AM

Raging Bee:

You are right on target with the above assessment of Klingenschmitt. Hardly a week went by without some commanding officer or department head calling me and asking me to please keep Klingenschmitt away from their troops. When I would talk to many other sailors on base, they would often say "Chaplain Holcomb, if Chaplain Klingenschmitt represents what Christianity is all about, then I can do without it." People who attended the base chapel requested that I give them a forewarning of when Klingenschmitt was going to be in chapel because they said they didn't want to be in chapel with him. He was openly and often criticized as being an embarrassment as a naval officer and even more of an embarrassment as a chaplain. I had to discontinue sending him on casualty assistance calls because he offended the grieving family members with his comments. Ultimately, he became so totally "persona non grata" in the military community that he could not be assigned any pastoral or ministerial duties.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 25, 2008 4:40 PM

Sorry for the clerical error, that should state, "is the bible verse. . .", not "was".

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 25, 2008 5:48 PM

All this attention from so many fans!

I'll try to answer everybody's questions in turn:

To Michael B.: You assume I didn't care for Sailors, or was ineffective as a minister, but 84% of my crew agreed "The Command Chaplain cares for everyone, regardless of faith or belief." I led 45 Sailors to faith in Jesus Christ (out of 300 on my ship) in my first two years, which was far more effective than lukewarm chaplains I knew who watered down their prayers. My programs won 6 awards for community service, including "best in Navy" for feeding the homeless every week. And my advocacy for my Jewish Sailor earned me letters from the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Welfare Board. As for the Hindu prayer in the Senate, my WND article about that is entirely consistent with my Proceedings article. I advocated on my ship to "take turns" and "share the prayer" with my Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic Sailors. And I believe the Hindu prayer in the Senate was fully Constitutional, although it obviously violated the Ten Commandments prohibition against idolatry. I applaud his right to pray publicly to a false god, even millions of them, but it will cost his soul someday when God judges us all. Like Elijah on Mount Carmel, I say: "Let them pray to their gods, and I will pray to the Most High God, and the God who answers by fire, He is God." (And all the people said, "That is a good idea.")

To SLC: The article I cited was not from David Barton, it was from People for the American Way, who corrected David Barton's minor error. Generously assuming PFTAW was correct in their critique, I have still proven that George Washington advocated for teaching about Jesus Christ in public schools. Even Jon Rowe conceded the quote was historically accurate. Nice try.

To Raging Bee and Norm (my dear Norm): I remain a Chaplain in good standing today, officially endorsed by my denomination as a Chaplain and Evangelist to America. There has never been a day in the last 6 years that I've not held a valid endorsement and ordination as Chaplain, and I still hold one today. But thanks for asking.

To Ed Darrell: Who are you? I don't recall meeting you, much less calling you an atheist, but you seem a little sensitive about that. Perhaps I struck a nerve, so if the shoe fits...

To Ed Brayton: Actually, your last reply seemed more rational than the previous ones, so I will not belittle your beliefs. I only suggest that if you think God has no awareness of His own identity, and doesn't wish to be loved, and should be ridiculed and labeled absurd, I'm saddened that you've never encountered His love. Perhaps I'm not the best example of love, since I quarrel too much, but really, please don't allow my weakness to tempt you to stumble. If I sin against you, please forgive me, but please do not use me as an excuse to sin against God. He has never wronged you. God is very near, and loves you very dearly.

In Jesus,
Chaps

Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 25, 2008 9:52 PM

All: Don't put too much stock in Mr. Klingenschmitt's reference to polls taken, percentages tallied, etc. I've already pointed out in other posts his disingenuous use of numbers to support his delusional image of himself and his abilities. He may have "led 45 sailors to Christ" (whatever that means) but as a chaplain charged with providing for all he managed to alienate the other 250 members of the crew. As for the story about the Jewish sailor and kosher food -- Mr. K. created that problem entirely on his own by being too bull-headed or too uninformed to use the proper channels through the supply officer and the supply system to procure kosher meals that were readily available. As Mr. K. made the mole-hill into a mountain, even the Jewish sailor expressed his embarrasment at the unfolding debacle and stated that he never intended for the situation to get out of hand. He told us that Mr. K. blew the situation out of proportion and that it was more of Mr. K's problem than his. And, of course the Jewish Welfare Board and the Anti-Defamation League wrote a letter expressing their gratitude for concern for a Jewish sailor. This was in keeping with protocol, was of a general nature and was not specifically acknowledging that Mr. K. had uncovered some colossal conspiracy against a Jewish sailor. He is so ego-maniacal that he has a tendency to interpret everything as being personally and specifically relative to him and his lost causes. He did the same thing with a letter from Senator Hillary Clinton. Being from New York, he wrote Senator Clinton with his claims of conspiracy against him. Senator Clinton replied and he spoke of that reply as being a personal reply relative to his case. In fact, it was a generic reply from a Senator to a constituent -- something that happens hundreds of times every day in the military. Any military person writing a letter (for whatever reason) to a senator or congressman will get a reply acknowledging receipt of the letter. Mr. K. always referred to Senator Clinton's response as a response supporting his complaints. Nothing could be further from the truth but this is how Mr. K. deceives, spins and turns his fantasy into reality.

Now, in response to SLC's wonderment as to how I put up with him for 2 years....Not only did I put up with him but I graciously agreed to take him on my staff after he had been kicked off his ship and had such a terrible reputation that no senior chaplain in the Navy wanted to accept him into their command. I tried every way in the world to help him, to mentor him and to show him how to be a naval officer and an effective chaplain. Mr. K. knows that I was long-suffering and supportive of him, even when he failed to take my advice and accept the benefit of my many years of experience. Finally, he turned on me with a vengeance when I called him to task for his untruthful spin of the truth, dishonesty in his public appearances and his absolute insubordination. As for his endorsement to the chaplaincy, Mr. K. knows that I know the whole truth about the chicanery involved in that issue. Mr. K., would you care to tell these folks about why and how you lost your first endorsement?
SLC, I got paid very well for what I did as a Navy Captain and a Command Chaplain. No matter what happened, there was never any doubt that I was a very senior O-6 and Mr. K. was a very junior O-3. When it became apparent that he was energized by some kind of self-destruct sickness that I had no control over, I just watched as he continued to burn down his own house.
And by the way, Mr. K. means it when he refers to me as "dear Norm" because he knows in his heart of hearts that had he listened to me things would have turned out differently for him.
And finally Mr. K., your pitiful attempts to "preach" to us using this site is disgustingly pathetic. You remind me of Charlotte Bronte's comment in the preface to Jane Eyre, "Self-righteousness is not religion." (And by the way, while you are in school why don't you consider taking a class in "logic" and a class in "statistics"?

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 25, 2008 10:58 PM

Capt. Holcomb,

I think I speak for a lot of Ed's readers when I state that I would have been proud to have served with you. Based on your many comments here over the past several months, I would have eagerly solicited your counsel during the tough times when soldiers are away from home and their loved ones. This GK guy, sheesh, what a cross that was for any senior chaplain to have to bear.

As an ex-senior manager (Director / VP level) in a number of tech companies who worked with thousands of people, I don't believe I've ever had to deal with someone so serially dishonest as GK, maybe because the "at-will" states I worked in make it easy to weed the garden and they were broomed-out prior to their antics getting the attention of someone at my level.

Some people just need a look, others need a knock in the head (I'm the latter), but this guy, man he's looking for a beating and seems not to care about the damage he does to others.

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 25, 2008 11:15 PM

Chaplain,

First,

Ed has stated numerous times over the year I have have been a reader that he is a Deist.

Second,

Public Schools is not place for any one religion or world view to take over. This is unconstitutional and dangerous. More harm has been done to Liberty in the name of religion than anything secular in history by far. If you want examples I will cite them for you.

Third,

Ed is very consistent in his advocacy for being able to teach the Bible in general. In fact, he is probably more open to it than I. I do not think it should occur unless you bring in at least the other of the 5 main world religions. We live in a global society and America is diverse. All points of view should be brought up and discussed in classes where it is appropriate.

Fourth,

I say all this as a born-again Christian. I was a preacher and missionary. I love God but will not go to church anymore. Why? Because of people like you who attach your culture and world view to the simple gospel and try to use God to impose your culture and views on others. Brother keep it simple. I also suggest following the laws that seperate church and state. They are there for a reason and protect Christian and atheist alike from tyranny in the name of religion.

There are good reasons why people like me who did not grow up in church reject it now. We feel like you all want to change who we are. I am sure some on here that think I am a bit crazy for what I believe would agree on this. I would suggest backing off some and just reading what people think here. Read the labels blog. Ed is right. We paint with broad strokes. All of us.

When I think Ed does it I nail him. But he honestly rarely does it. At least in my view. If I want real and intelligent dialouge I come on here. Cannot find it in church. Everyone knows too much and is out to push it on others and then complain when they think a group is pushing something on them.

Posted by: King of Ireland | July 26, 2008 12:04 AM

"We've gained no ground and I'm not your brother"

Pissed myself laughing

Posted by: King of Ireland | July 26, 2008 2:09 AM

Regarding the continued use of the title Chaplain. It is something that bothers me a little about former military people in general. Their title of "General" or "Captain" or whatever, is relevant in the military setting. However, once you leave the military, you arent a Captain any more. Why do so many people still refer to themselves as one?

Posted by: Donalbain | July 26, 2008 3:36 PM

No. You aren't a Captain. You no longer do that job. That is what the word retired means.

Posted by: Donalbain | July 28, 2008 4:59 AM

Donalbain,

A retired military person is still military. It is possible for example that even in retirement, they may need to be recalled to active duty. Capt. Holcomb can correct me if I'm wrong (entirely possible), but I believe retirees have not only honour and privliges of retaining rank but the responsibilities as well, in that they are still subject to the UCMJ.

Also, rank determines in part retirement benefits.

SLC,

Presidents also keep that title after they leave office. Doctors are still doctors after they retire. Chess grandmasters are GM's for life. I think lawyers retain their titles too.

Posted by: Dave S. | July 28, 2008 8:55 AM

Donalbain:

You are entirely incorrect. As a retired Captain (33 years) I am a member of the Fleet Reserve and subject to recall at the pleasure of the government (unlikely at my age, but possible). My check to bank retirement check every month is payable to "Captain Norm Holcomb" and my ID card says "Captain, USN." When I went through the gate at Oceana Naval Air Station this morning I came to a stop and showed the gate guard my ID. He looked at my ID, the DOD sticker on my windshield and saluted me and said "Have a good day Captain." My vehicle DOD registration mounted on my windshield for access to military compounds sports a blue DOD sticker and a Navy Captain eagle to identify me. I am extended the right to wear my uniform under certain conditions. While I have other titles, I am rather proud of my 33 years of honorable service and attainment of the rank of Navy Captain (O-6). I began as a private (E-1) in the U. S. Marine Corps in 1963. I have fought in at least 5 wars (conflicts?) and have been awarded the Legion of Merit 3 times, Purple Heart 2 times, 3 Vietnam Era Bronze Stars, 5 Navy Commendation Medals, 2 Combat Action awards, Navy Marine Corps Gold Parachute Wings and a shit-pot of other awards and decorations. Yes, Donalbain, I earned it, I'm proud of it, I wear it and respond to it with honor and if given the opportunity I would do it all over again. I recommend that you read the regulations regarding rank and retired personnel. Meanwhile I am "Navy born and Navy bred, and when I die I'll be Navy CAPTAIN dead!" And that's what the stone will say in Arlington Cemetery. By the way, you don't have to call me Captain but you should be correct in your assessment of situations. Do I sound a little irritated? In fact, I am. I, as have many others, have paid the price and have little tolerance for the jealous ones who, as the Colonel said in "A Few Good Men," "sleep under the blanket of our protection."
I now feel tremendously better and am now on the way out for a round of golf with 3 other retired Navy Captains.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 28, 2008 10:15 AM

You are retired. Captain is a job. You dont do the job. You are not a Captain.

Simple really.

Posted by: Donalbain | July 28, 2008 1:43 PM

Donalbain: sometimes, and for various reasons (tradition in calling former Presidents "President," recognition of continued potential obligation in calling former captains "Captain," recognition of continued ability in calling former doctors "Doctor," etc.), we do indeed officially refer to certain people by their former title or rank, even after they're retired. A captain is still a captain because he may be called back to active duty as such (and we still recognize his former service to his country), and a doctor is still a doctor because he still has the skills and knowledge of a doctor and may be called upon to use them sometime. My mother is no longer the "Chief Economist" of the House Budget Committee, but she's still an "economist," at least as long as she remembers what she learned as such.

Simple really.

(Capt. Holcomb: according to tradition, if you lose your rank the way Klingenschmitt did, do you still get to use your former title/rank?)

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2008 1:55 PM

Exactly! Your mother is not Chief Economist. People who stop doing their job no longer keep the job titles.

Posted by: Donalbain | July 28, 2008 8:05 PM

Sean -

Don't make him repeat it for the fourth time. :)

Posted by: Dave S. | July 28, 2008 9:22 PM

As the Captain said, he retains his commission until the day he dies.

unless he goes to extra trouble to deliberately give it up after retirement, which some people apparently try to do as a way to avoid being recalled again. i'm uncertain if it works.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 29, 2008 11:10 AM

It just reminds me of Matthew 23, "they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'"

Who the hell cares.

Were you one of those chaplains who acted like they actually command troops? The chaplains I knew were a little more humble than that.

Mind your own damn business. Thanks.

Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2008 1:48 AM

Joe Frazier:

No, I wasn't one of those types. No, I didn't try to command troops (surely you understand the difference in unrestricted line officers and restricted/staff corps officers). Did I live by military protocol and insist on military protocol? You bet I did because I have served in combat and know that discipline is not something that's "just nice to have" -- it can make the difference in life and death, victory and defeat in armed conflict.
Joe Frazier:
It always amazes me when people chime in on a topic in a dialogue such as this and spout off comments that have no connection whatsoever with what is being discussed. I have divulged information about me only insofar as it is needed to establish some level of credibility to what I have to say regarding the topic at hand. It's sort of like establishing the credentials of an "expert witness" in a court of law or being identified as a "subject matter expert" for teaching a seminar or class. I have found it refreshing to "meet" people who respect these rational and intellectual principles in the topics of discussion in which I have participated. Of course, one has to accept the fact that there are those whose education is so impoverished or whose psyche is so poisoned with negative hate about everything and everybody that they interject their self-righteous comments purely from the position of emotion and uninformed provincial prejudices. And, for me, the most disgusting of all are those who quote some Bible verse and assume some super-religious posture. Lacking enough intellectual capital to make a serious contribution to the subject, they resort to attacking individuals on the basis of some ill-informed religious point of view. So, Joe Frazier, the question at hand was "Do retired officers retain the title of their rank at retirement?" Rather than read the responses with the discretion of one who seeks credible, supporting evidence you chose to flex your "biblical muscles" and attack me. Perhaps Jesus will love you more for doing that.

Posted by: CAPT Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 30, 2008 12:02 PM

You mean, of course, that your intellect is superior to the Bible, and those who respect it? What kind of chaplain are you?

Where and when did Capt. Holcomb say ANYTHING remotely like that? Are you really arguing with Holcomb, or with some voice in your own head? The mere fact that you would put sauch words in someone else's mouth, with absolutely no supporting evidence, proves you're really not interested in discussing the issues like an adult.

And the fact that TWO of us answered your questions in plain English, and gave perfectly ordinary reasons for stating one's rank, and you completely ignored what either of us said, further proves your disdain for reality.

Whoever you are, Mr. Holcomb, it becomes more obvious the more you talk against Jesus and the Bible.

Are you really responding to what we say here? Or are you just mindlessly reciting talking-points and slogans without even thinking of anything else?

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 30, 2008 3:18 PM

Did Mr. Holcomb say "No, I wasn't one of those types. No, I didn't try to command troops."

But I found a recording of his voice on the Americans United web-site. Mr. Holcomb, is that you screaming at Mr. Klingenschmitt, because he asked to see his lawyer?

http://persuade.tv/frenzy3/ChaplainGetsServed.wma

Some great Christian witness, for a chaplain to yell and scream at another chaplain. Mr. Holcomb sounds more like a drill sargeant than a man of the cloth. He's got serious anger issues.

Posted by: Joe Frazier | July 30, 2008 11:31 PM

Boarding private schooloffers to the students chance to study in one of the tops schools in the area. Teens along with their studies also evolve in extra curricular activities which can enhance their performance
http://www.teensprivateschools.com/

Posted by: arnold414 | July 31, 2008 5:44 AM

The only thing becoming more clear is Mr. Holcomb's true character. He claims to be a humble non-commander but flashes his rank and boasts about medals, and denies acting bossy toward subordinates while yelling and screaming at them, then he admits getting angry and having "hot buttons" when people question his titles. Seems like they guy's on a power trip.

So here's the bottom line, did Mr. Holcomb really have authority to order K-man to stop praying in Jesus name? No wonder he bucked Holcomb's supposed "authority." I don't blame him, working for this dinosaur.

Posted by: Joe Frazier | July 31, 2008 6:07 PM

All:

Read this guy's last post and see if you can determine whether or not he has any ability to read and interpret with any sense of comprehension whatsoever!? The "hot buttons" I referred to are "tip off" words as to the identity of the author and have nothing to do with me getting angry nor did I suggest that they made me angry. I know who this guy is and I know who is coaching him. "Joe Frazier" might be an appropriate pseudo name. Considering the quality of his responses, it could be argued that he has been hit in the head too many times by Muhammed Ali or George Foreman. God bless you "Joe Frazier" and "may the force be with you."

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 31, 2008 7:11 PM

There's no way a senior chaplain (or anybody) has authority to tell K-man how to pray, where to pray, or what clothes to pray in. If they don't have God-given authority, there's no insubordination. He obeyed God rather than men.

But considering how Mr. Holcomb showed disdain for Jesus and the Bible, just by talking to me here, I'm not surprised he wanted to stop K-man from praying to Jesus. Hope that works for you when you meet Jesus someday, Mr. H, since you don't know what it means to lead somebody to Christ "(whatever that means)." You might wanna read John 3, just to be safe.

And forget the audio, what about the court transcript? Did Mr. Holcomb lie under oath and contradict K-man's voice recorder, as it states in the court transcript half-way down the blog here?

http://blog.au.org/2007/04/05/a-matter-of-honor-the-truth-comes-out-about-former-chaplain-klingenschmitt/comments/

Me and my "consorts." Hilarious. Is the vast right wing "consortium" is out to get you, Mr. Holcomb?

Posted by: Joe Frazier | July 31, 2008 8:14 PM

Re "Joe Frazier"

I don't think I've seen a troll quite this hardcore since the days of Larry Fafarman.

Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | July 31, 2008 9:43 PM

Holy crap. Have you and "Joe Frazier" ever met in person, Norm? He acts as though he has a vendetta against you.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 31, 2008 11:05 PM

Mr. H., your paranoia has you guessing at conspiracy theories. I live west of Asheville, North Carolina, which is a bit more than 10 minutes down whatever road you drive. Look me up sometime when you come for the next Methodist ministers conference. My name's in the book. And stop harassing Mr. K-man. He's paid a high enough price.

Posted by: Joe Frazier | August 1, 2008 2:23 PM

I live west of Asheville, North Carolina, which is a bit more than 10 minutes down whatever road you drive.

You mean all roads lead to Asheville, NC? Did Frazier manage to distort space-time around Asheville while turning himself into Jesus?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 1, 2008 2:32 PM

Phil:
Good to hear from you. I think I saw something a few months ago signed by someone calling himself "Stonewall" and I thought it was probably you. However, I would be surprised if it were you because he stated that I was a coward and I'm sure you know better than that. I still stand by my "testosterone" statement and believe it to be true. If you think that I became a defender of the Chaplain Corps in general during the K fiasco then you are way off target. K knows that when he was relieved and sent ashore that I was the only senior chaplain who would take him without prejudice. On the first day he reported aboard I told him that the only history I would be interested in would be the history created during the next 3 months of his service. He knows that I was his advocate from the very beginning. I stood by him and spoke up for him until he asked me not to help him anymore. He sealed his own doom and it had nothing to do with praying in Jesus' name. If he had listened to me he would still be on active duty today (may never have been promoted again but he would have gotten 20 and retirement). The command turned a blind eye to his insubordination and cowboy tactics until finally he had to be dealt with for the sake of good order and discipline. He was finally called to account for violation of the UCMJ just as any of us would under the circumstances. And again, praying in Jesus' name had nothing to do with what happened to him.
Hope you are enjoying retirement and hope the family is doing well. I understand, and to some extent share your aversion to staying away from ministers who lie, slander, backstab and mislead. Your comment is subject to interpretation but I am quite sure that I have made no such negative contributions along those lines for which you owe me thanks. If I remember correctly, I was always a comrade and a friend who sought to help you on at least one occasion and certainly never caused you any harm.
While I don't remember seeing Abelson's memo, I wouldn't argue that the Corps was/is free of "systemic moral" and corruption issues. Until the day I retired I was probably more vocal about those issues than any other chaplain in the Corps.
Oh yes, I remember Stonewall's wording now -- suggested that I was defending the Corps and persecuting K because I had "an Admiralty" in my sights (or words to that effect). Really Phil, as outspoken as I always was about the Corps do you really think that I ever had a shot at "Admiralty?" (or even coveted such a position?). I have my records, notes, anecdotes and almost 30 years of facts that will find their way into print in one form or another over the next couple of years. I doubt that anyone will be very much interested but I'll feel better for organizing and putting it all together.
I would like to continue our conversation/communication person to person rather than in a public venue. I have never thought of you as anything other than a friend. Again, good to hear from you and I wish you well.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | August 1, 2008 11:18 PM

Donna:
Read the above quotes again. The first quote does not say that a chaplain has to pray in a certain way -- it merely points out how a chaplain's prayers can offend people of other faiths if not worded with discretion and respect for others. I often assigned my Muslim chaplain to pray at command functions where personnel were required to attend. He had the good sense to know that he was addressing people of all faith groups and people who had no faith but had to attend because they were ordered to attend. Can you imagine the uproar that would have ensued had he prayed "in the name of Allah?" He accepted the fact that he was a chaplain in an institutional environment and had a responsibility to observe and respect that under certain circumstances. What he did at his Muslim service was entirely his own business and in accord with whatever rules governed Muslim worship.
As to the second quote, no chaplain has to pray at any event if he/she thinks the composition of the event restricts and dictates the composition of his prayer.
It's hilarious for anyone to think that I would lie to cover up anything that Lou Iasiello said or did. Lou would be the first to tell you that our relationship was akin to that of "mongoose and cobra." We were in disagreement about practically every issue that came before us.
And by the way, the issue was never about "praying in Jesus' name." The court martial occurred because of a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit, "disobedience of a lawful order." No military person is allowed to participate in any kind of political or partisan event while wearing a uniform. This was made very clear and reinforced over and over again. Had the subject appeared in civilian clothing as he was advised to do, nothing would have been said.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | August 2, 2008 1:17 PM

Dogmeatib:

I'm not sure what has transpired in the courts since I retired. Commanding Officers invite many people to change of command ceremonies. Participants in those ceremonies (color guard, ushers, representative "honor" sections or platoons, etc. are assigned duties and are present throughout the function). Equally important, shipmates, colleagues, guests, former Commanding Officers will be invited to attend and usually represent a broad spectrum of faith groups (or those professing no faith). Respect for those in attendance dictates that common sense be observed at such a function. It is common knowledge that there are those who use these kinds of functions to "evangelize" the assembly. Likewise, at a command sponsored memorial service there are those who take advantage of an event intended to respectfully memorialize the service of a shipmate to announce that there are some present who will "go to hell" if they don't susbscribe to a particular brand of religion. Chaplains are given instruction in basic chaplains's school about the nuances of serving in an institutional pluralistic environment. The truth of the matter is that some ministers are not suited for this kind of work and don't do very well in an institutional setting.
Personally, I do not think we should include prayer in these kinds of public ceremonies. It exists only as a vestige of customs that are no longer apropo in today's society. Chaplains may pray as they wish in their regularly scheduled chapel services and when conducting Bible studies and prayer groups that have been previously publicized as having a specific faith focus. Under these conditions, anyone attending has an idea "up front" as to what the religious emphasis might be.
Please understand however, that the disciplinary issue in this case had nothing to do with prayer under any circumstances. The issue was disobedience of a lawful order and appearing in support of a political, partisan protest while in uniform. The fact that a prayer was offered was no more influential on the issue than if any other statement would have been made. Of huge issue was the fact that the subject, while in uniform, was passing out leaflets in protest of existing Navy policy. This in itself amounted to participating in a political, partisan protest while in uniform. Whether or not there may have been merit to the content of the leaflets/protest was of no consequence. Clearly and simply put, the law that governs military personnel prohibits that sort of activity while in uniform.
I understand your concern regarding the issue of a "mandatory function in a government agency with required attendance, and prayer" and I share the same concerns as you seem to reflect. I personally think that we have been "pushing the envelope" regarding religion in the military for far too long and, as I said above, in my opinion prayer should be totally excluded from these types of ceremonies.

Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | August 2, 2008 2:18 PM

NH said:
Phil:
Good to hear from you. I think I saw something a few months ago signed by someone calling himself "Stonewall" and I thought it was probably you. However, I would be surprised if it were you because he stated that I was a coward and I'm sure you know better than that.
PV: Wasn't me. I never engage these issues anymore. Too toxic. Since 2005, I abandoned the effort due to stress and health-related issues. Most literally, what I saw and heard made me sick. As a result, I was getting toxic, with PTSD from it.

NH: said: I still stand by my "testosterone" statement and believe it to be true.
PV: Yep. Would lie too. Run in a firefight.

NH said: If you think that I became a defender of the Chaplain Corps in general during the K fiasco then you are way off target. K knows that when he was relieved and sent ashore that I was the only senior chaplain who would take him without prejudice. On the first day he reported aboard I told him that the only history I would be interested in would be the history created during the next 3 months of his service.
PV: K's case is basic and simple. He ran afoul of an 06-blackshoe-blue-water-Skipper which did involve issues of prayer and at least one sermon. Once that happens, one is toast. GK came at a time that the CHC was, itself, under attack, including RADM Byron Holderby, who, from several reports, retired under serious clouds, to wit, the CNO. Once the media strikes, the poor Whistleblower is on the skyline with the military sniper training his crosshairs on the hapless (and well-intentioned) reporter. I know that firsthand. I understand the false reports, lies, partisan IG's. By adversitive (and excellent) training, I understand GK.

NH: He knows that I was his advocate from the very beginning. I stood by him and spoke up for him until he asked me not to help him anymore. He sealed his own doom and it had nothing to do with praying in Jesus' name.
PV: Norm, not convinced that, at base or at root, this had a theological or religious impetus. I understand the uniform issue, but that is inextricably connected to the unresolved issue---government-controlled prayers or sermons. I will tell you this, had this been a Roman priest, it would not have been tolerated. Consider Rigdon v. Perry ruling.
NH: If he had listened to me he would still be on active duty today (may never have been promoted again but he would have gotten 20 and retirement).
PV: He was toast perhaps as early as Chaplaincy School over Title X provisions for free exercise. The ballgame was over in the first, not second, tour.
NH: The command turned a blind eye to his insubordination and cowboy tactics until finally he had to be dealt with for the sake of good order and discipline. He was finally called to account for violation of the UCMJ just as any of us would under the circumstances. And again, praying in Jesus' name had nothing to do with what happened to him.
PV: I understand all this. I will also stand for the Muslim's right to pray in Allah's name, a Jewish person's to pray to Adonai-Elohenu, as well as the classical Christian prayer. Or the Roman priest to pray to Mary and the other departed invokees. Given the government's anti-Christ perspective, it's evident that, on my side, I turn prospects from the Chaplaincy. Seven so far. An eighth candidate is in the offing.

NH: Hope you are enjoying retirement and hope the family is doing well.
PV: Doing well. Sharon owns the NC School of Performing Arts and it does well. I have a modest, not magnificent, lifestyle and tool along in my Beamer to the library, Books-a-Million, and Barnes & Noble. All four kids in college.

NH: I understand, and to some extent share your aversion to staying away from ministers who lie, slander, backstab and mislead.
PV: I have switched from the presumption of regularity and good order to the presumption of the opposite. Regrettably, it is a "stuck" or "sticking" point of daily rehearsal and bad creams at night, to wit, immoral toads.
NH: Your comment is subject to interpretation but I am quite sure that I have made no such negative contributions along those lines for which you owe me thanks. If I remember correctly, I was always a comrade and a friend who sought to help you on at least one occasion and certainly never caused you any harm.
PV: Norm, you knew I had issues and asked, after one year at New London subase, to be transferred to Squadron TEN. You, CAPT Day and CAPT Schoberg were aware of my issues. There were serious issues and I was glad to move. Ahem. Let's just say that the senior Chaplains agreed with my request. I concur that you never did harm, then or later. I am thankful for what you taught me. Upon my return from the demonic hell-hole of Naples, I vividly and rightly recollect your comment about "how corrupt" the Corps was. That's fact. I concur. Not all, but many.

NH: While I don't remember seeing Abelson's memo, I wouldn't argue that the Corps was/is free of "systemic moral" and corruption issues. Until the day I retired I was probably more vocal about those issues than any other chaplain in the Corps.
PV: I recollect RADM Black's signature on it as the Deputy. Hence, it was done under that forlorn Chief, RADM Holderby. Also, this was a time-frame, or a bit later, when VADM Norb Ryan, MILSPERCOM, conducted a top secret study after downloading all the computers in the Chief's office. GEN James Jones, USMC, was commandant and make an off-the-record comment to a reporter-friend that is was bad.

NH: Oh yes, I remember Stonewall's wording now -- suggested that I was defending the Corps and persecuting K because I had "an Admiralty" in my sights (or words to that effect). Really Phil, as outspoken as I always was about the Corps do you really think that I ever had a shot at "Admiralty?" (or even coveted such a position?).
PV: Nah, don't think so Norm. I rarely blog, rarely look at my email (I have 2200 unanswered and undeleted emails ndeleted), and, generally, lead a quiet, secluded, peaceful life...where the books are. For health reasons. However, I got an email saying you were mixing it up with GK. I had to see that. I check in from time to time, but never regularly. Medical counsel has advised me to avoid "triggers" such as some lying sacks of crap in the CHC. I know you never wanted Admiralty. But while on that issue, what was RADM Louis "Vito" Iasiello's role in GK's situation? We know--for a fact--that he directed a Camp Lejeune Chaplain (command chaplain) to take a mid-level chaplain to office hours for appearing in uniform on Brit Hume's Special Fox Report (nightly news). The senior chaplain, to his credit, would not do it. "Vito" (my moniker) had to wait for a changing of the guard. When that happened, the Whistleblower was marginalized. It was another mess, but, given that Vito was involved in this, how or what did Iasiello do re: GK. I can only imagine.

NH: I have my records, notes, anecdotes and almost 30 years of facts that will find their way into print in one form or another over the next couple of years. I doubt that anyone will be very much interested but I'll feel better for organizing and putting it all together.
PV: Some have advocated I write a book also. I did four chapters and rousted through boxes of depositions, affidavits, and notes. Too toxic.

NH: I would like to continue our conversation/communication person to person rather than in a public venue. I have never thought of you as anything other than a friend. Again, good to hear from you and I wish you well.
PV: I wish you well, also. A few concluding observations. First, the ANZIO Skipper was derelict in the performance of his duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I believe GK when he says he offered other faith perspectives or participants--other than himself--to pray during nightly evening prayers. Second, I believe the "chain of influence" (chaplains...since, according to Katcoff and Rigdon v. Perry, chaplains have "rank without command") failed. The CHC does not have a credible or Constitutional policy, but a reductionistic, repressive, and anti-Christian perspective. Third, this was soluble. I encountered a similar problem without event. On an aircraft carrier, I prayed "in Jesus name" every second or third night. Not always. But half the time or so. A Jewish dentist threw a fit. Threatening me because of his anti-Christ perspective. I offered him the opportunity to pray from the Jewish Prayer book, should he please. He claimed to be offended. I claimed I was offended at his insolent and offensive attack. I told him to take a hike, put me on report, and do whatever. I don't lower my theological flags for ANYONE. Fortunately, no one could take his claptrap too seriously. Fifth, the Chaplain Corps should remove rank altogether and proceed like the (UK) Royal Navy. It should also remove pay and force the denominations to send ministers under its own banners, at its own expenses. The genuine pigs would squeal. The genuine Churchmen and Churches/Synagogues, thus sent, would provide for greater commitment--than the many time-serving pensioners with so little to offer and so little to say. Convinced many joined the CHC to hide from more harsh realities on the outside. Good chatting, Norm.

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | August 2, 2008 7:15 PM

Donna said:

Isn't there some rule against Chaplains lying to the press? CAPT Holcomb says this wasn't about praying in Jesus name, but Klingerschmitt's powerpoint slides have conflicting quotes by Admiral Iasello:

http://persuade.tv/frenzy2/WACspeech.ppt

"Any chaplain's continued insistence on ending public prayers 'in Jesus name' in all situations, without using discretion or regards to the venue or audience, could reasonably tend to denigrate those with different forms of faith." Rear Adm. Louis V. Iasiello memo to Chaplain Klingenschmitt, 23 Aug 05

VERSUS

"We don't direct how a person's going to pray. Because everyone's own denomination or faith group has certain directives or certain ways of doing things, and we would never -- it's that whole separation-of-church-and-state thing -- we would never want to direct institutionally that a person could or couldn't do something." Rear Adm. Iasiello to Washington Post, 30 Aug 05 (that same week)

So it looks like Admiral Iasello lied to the press, and now CAPT Holcomb is lying to cover up his lies.
------------------------

PV: Donna, you captured it. RADM Iasiello's conflicting utterances, to wit...it did not go un-noticed by many at the time. Nor, to many of us, was it surprising. Once upon a time, when elemental trust existed and ideals were much higher, on my part, I would have been surprised. No more though. Par for course (or it coarse?)...I know the difference.

Reminds me of a time a Deputy Chief of Chaplains attended a meeting with some Congressmen on the Hill and Chaplaincy litigants. I also think Senator Graham Linsey (R-SC) was present if not mistaken. The hapless Deputy intoned solemnly to the Congressmen and staffers that he had never seen or heard religious discrimination during his tenured career in the sinless, flawless CHC. The CHC was full of original Adams and Eves before the fall from glory and grace. What a howler! The litigants' lawyer and one litigant guffawed and pointed to a very specific instance that was clearly in his orbit of knowledge. The report I got was that the truculuent and cheeky chap left the meeting early in a rage, red-faced, and--doing his duty--impenitent.

Again, the presumption of irregularity, disorder, and--certainly--hubris as well as institutional self-preservation obtains. Glad to have perspective on it these days.

When one is killed, assassinated, maligned, and done an injustice, it predisposes that victim to "obsess" about the loss of trust, loss of power, loss of self-esteem (sometimes) and can handily disorient the perspective. It is called complicated and extended trauma and grief. It is particularly acute for rape victims who, psychologically, suffer more than combat veterans---who at least have their buddies and unit support. That is how I see GK. One poster noted that GK had his 15-minutes in the sunshine. Not quite, by a long shot.

But again, back to the original point. What you noted about RADM Louis "Vito" Iasiello was duly noted at the time.

I hope we may hear more from Norm about Louis's role in GK's ordeal. The little uniform snafu is like using a sludge hammer to crush a peanut. The real and central issue predates the little uniform issue. They were "gunning" for him. Whether it had been public or private, he was toast. GK didn't allow it to be private.
He should get a Bronze Star for courage.

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | August 2, 2008 9:58 PM

CAPT Holcomb, didn't Congress reverse that Navy prayer policy?

Quote "In a Congressional report on the situation, members of a conference committee noted, "The House bill contained a provision ... to prescribe that military chaplains shall have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of their conscience, except as must be limited by military necessity, with any such limitation being imposed in the least restrictive manner feasible." That position was adopted with orders that the "Secretary of the Navy rescind Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1730.7C dated February 21, 2006, titled 'Religious Ministry within the Department of the Navy'" and replace it with a policy allowing such freedoms." From the article at
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53731

Isn't this the same policy Klingerschmitt protested and violated by worshipping in public? If so, he's already got a Gold Star, awarded by Congress who agreed with him.

Posted by: donna newman | August 3, 2008 12:37 AM

NH said:
Phil:
I only spoke with Lou one time and that was shortly after GK reported to my department. I asked Lou to "cease fire" and give me a chance to mentor GK.
PV: Yikes, a surprise, given one demonstrable pattern by Lou here at Camp Lejeune--roughly same time frame, where Lou was gunning for a mid-level Chap. Lou demanded that the senior chap "press UCMJ charges" against the mid-level Chaplain. Fortunately, the Chap was able to retire and, in fact, refrained from wearing an uniform in public-media appearances (following an appearance with Brit Hume's people). Although he made subsequent appearances in the media (TV, radio and print), he did so without the uniform. Tactically, this Chap won to see a retirement. Strategically, of course, the effort at such always bodes ill for the speaker (Whistleblower).
In those shenanigans, there was a 3-star ADM (line) whose name eludes me, but he--the ADM--personally called the CO of the USMC Supply Depot, Athens, GA to scare off another litigant--from appearance on TV with Hume. It worked. Can't remember the ADM's name, but he was in the top echelon in CNO's office.
The mid-level Chap had joined the litigation effort. The CDR-senior Chap who served as an interim command Chap at CLNC was a Roman priest over age 62. He, by name, was cited in the Roman geriatric retirement program in litigation, to wit, the program that cut breaks for Roman priests. One was aged 78 on active duty, while all others--other faith groups--went home by a Congressionally-mandated age of 62. There were about 15-17 active duty priests getting denominational preferences on Lou's Geriatric Program. As you may imagine, this CDR-priest was ill-disposed to the near-retirement litigant under his cognizance. Lou was in this one up to his eyeballs. Tactically, the litigant was wise and did not wear the uniform. Even though marginalized to la-la-land for a year.

NH: I passed this info to GK and less than a week later he was on the 700 Club putting himself back on the skyline and generally "sticking his finger in my eye" in terms of my attempts to be his advocate.
PV: Norm, my take? PTSD and obsession with the treatment on the ANZIO. Tactically, I wish GK had granted you wider berth of operations. And even on the uniform issue. I did my TV times without uniform, as well as dozens of radio programs. But I understand something of that obsession. Upon return CONUS from Naples, I had some good men over me, but I could not stop obsessing with the cess-pool of the Naples-ENTERPRISE debacle. It consumed every waking hour. I wish it hadn't, but it did. Again, I recollect in a group-grope therapy session, a rape victim. She could not get it out of her mind though it happened years ago. Dreams, reliving the crime, sleeplessness, etc. The perp was prosecuted and put in jail. She wanted to blow his head off with an handgun. Homocidal ideations. The perp got out of jail and she got a handgun and hoped he would break and enter and attempt such again. Norm, this was years and years after the initial event. Fortunately, the perp did it again (with someone else) and he's in the klinker.
NH: I never spoke with Lou again and to my knowledge Lou had no contact with NAVSTA regarding the uniform issue. That was purely the action of the CO at NAVSTA. Are you aware of the fact that GK publicly stated (and it was printed) that he was "disobeying an order and challenging the Navy to do something about it?"
PV: I have no reason to disbelieve this, although, from the ANZIO standpoint, I think he was obsessed. That is what you inherited. I believe he had an NIG/Whistleblower complaint afoot. I would have then, as now, advised GK to avoid the uniform issue, given that that was a minor point over which a mountain could be and, later, was built---irrelevant to the facts and inquiry on the ANZIO.
As to NIG's, however, they serve these few purposes. First, from the Navy's standpoint, to exonerate and mitigate any potential damage to the Navy. Admirals don't want TV-cases on one of their Skippers. Once upon a time, from my side, there was actually idealistic hope that IG's were fair and impartial. I learned otherwise personally. However, I learned also that--within---within the IG world, they also laughed at their own agenda and self-consciously biased inquiries, or by parallel, e.g. Cardinal Law in Boston and his issues. An high-level DODIG investigator told me 98% of all complaints are unsubstantiated. Who's foolin' whom here? That's almost as good a batting average as God's. Secondly, from a litigant's standpoint, I always recommended IG's, not for any expectation of correction, but precisely because they DO uniformly exhibit the bias, excluded evidence, wrong questions...in general, uniform inadequacy. Sad, but true.
As to GK, my view is that he should have pursued the NIG quietly and proceeded to federal court. But when one is alone on an issue like this--as GK surely must have felt--one reaches for the tools available. Even without the uniform, there would have been--am sure--pressure not to appear on TV or radio. A Marine Colonel attempted to stop my interview with the Wash Post. Fortunatelly, it happened about an hour after the interview was given. GK didn't conform to the uniform-issue and he was hung on it. An issue that--for some--eclipses the underlying issue of government-controlled prayer and sermons.

NH: Given your experience in the Corps, I understand your sympathies and agree with you regarding much of what you have stated.
PV: My case also was sidetracked, though dissimilarly. I resigned and "constructive discharge" issues were the legal issue, although the Judge noted that "serious Constitutional issues were at bar." Those were never seriously litigated, although we unearthed a boat-load of crap about a lot of losers. Oh well.
NH: However, the fact remains that GK sewed the seeds of his own demise. Without any reference to his performance and conduct on ANZIO, I can honestly and objectively say that he became the most insubordinate, untruthful and contemptuous officer with whom I ever served.
PV: Norm, this is your view. My assessment is based on the reports from media. I ought FOIA the summary judgment court martial, since they are federal documents in the public domain. (I think it was a SCM?) As you know from experience with me, I like to evaluate all sides--deliberatively. You know my commitment from past experiences with the ninth commandment, vis a vis the Westminster Larger Catechism.
(As an aside, we FOIA'd some of the Navy priest-paedophile transcripts...as public documents. Ugly stuff, Norm, and the Military Archdiocese, sheesh. Amazing how fast these guys would disappear. A few didn't though. I may consider FOIA'ing GK's trial transcripts.)

NH: As far as Naval Uniform Regs are concerned, participating in political/partisan protests in uniform is not the same as "performing rites and rituals distinct to one's faith group." Civilians seem to fail to understand that the uniform does not belong to the individual -- it belongs to the Navy and the Navy extends to its members the privilege of wearing it under the regulations and guidelines established by the Navy.
PV: I understand the issue as dangerous territory. Tactically, that was a battle that did not need to be fought. GK and I probably disagree here. But, as you know, I see the broader strategic issues here as well. Much more limitedly, officers do wear uniforms to political events, such as testifying on the Hill, but this is limited--from what I can see--to senior officers and not the rank and file.

NH: Phil, you have the "inside" story on what you perceive to be the sins and shortcomings of the system.
PV: Yep. Norm, as you used to say (often), "There are a 1000 ways you can get ambushed in this system." Indeed. Once on the skyline, that's it...one is toast.
NH: I will grant you that and honor your perceptions to the extent that they are based on fact and truth.
PV: Concur, including the clause "to the extent." SGT Friday of Dragnet, "Just the facts, Ma'am."
NH: I would request that you reciprocate to some degree in terms of acknowledging that I too have some "inside" knowlege; but more importantly, that I know a great deal more about GK's motives, spin on the truth and outright misrepresentation of many things that happened along the way.
PV: I do reciprocate to the request, "to the extent" to which it accords with the facts. Personally, I am sorry you had to "mix it up" with GK.
NH: As one who sat on many awards board, I would have to disagree with you and announce that the facts and evidence would not sustain award of the Navy Achievement Medal and certainly not a Bronze Star!
PV: I could have ventured this conclusion on your part.
I had an outstanding Skipper on the ENTERRPISSE when CDR Luther Alexander (won't call him Chaplain) was the senior Chap. He, CAPT Malone, USN, the Skipper, went on to VADM at AIRLANT and PACFLT, methinks. Rock-solid leader. During the dustup there (that was the genesis of Naples, BTW), the then-CAPT said, "If a solid Officer or Chief is done an injustice, they are the worst to control." I won't forget that.

GK is no slouch. USAF Academy grad, no small achievement either to enter or graduate. 11 years as a USAF officer. And then...the Navy Chaplaincy. I also believe his issues started there in Newport, RI, at the Chaplains School for new-joins. He was challenged Title X provisions there.

By parallel, I forget the name of the movie...storyline: USMC MEU Commander is railroaded over a botched-rescue mission in a Middle East country. The politicians are out for a scapegoat. The newspapers are calling for a head. The MEU Commander is the Colonel and Wash leaders want a head. Samuel Jackson is the actor. Tommy Lee Jones plays the USMC JAG defender of the MEU Commander. In the court martial, the MEU Commander escapes the charges of first degree murder for 83 deaths and gets slapped with a "disturbing the peace" charge. Once all is over, the closing scene has the USMC JAG officer (and friend of the MEU Commander) saying to the politico-NSA Director, "You ever had a pissed-off Marine on your ass?" The movie closes citing the few politicos who suffered dispatch to oblivion.

Unfortunately, that's not usual.

I think you had a "pissed-off Chaplain" who would not and could not let it go. The ANZIO was the root-issue and you inherited it. I am not sure you could have done anything with GK. Further, I am not sure he could hear your counsel. He was profoundly injured and obsessed with reversal of that. I'll bet some money, also, that he was a far better Chaplain on the ANZIO than the recycled stories that are used later to assassinate a Whistleblower.
I wish GK could have met you under other circumstances. GK is "obsessed" and I understand that.

These are my thoughts.

All the sideshows to the side.

On my side, and for this closing, unscientific postscript, I stand by my practice on the two carriers I served, praying in Jesus's Sovereign name every second or third night. And allowing other faith-reps their opportunity--freely and according to their own conscience and beliefs. That is freedom and pluralism, not the homogenized version on offer from the government. Plus, no line officer has a twit's understanding of theology/history compared to men like us with 200-220 grad hours of theo. They should stick to ship-driving. As to some baccalaureate-only CO thinking he might have theological competence re: sermons, baloney. BTW, I never had any CO do that, censorially, sermonically. I had old CAPT Buckie the priest think he could do that---what a flaming ignoramus he was. In fact, talking of rock-solid CO's rather than blathering CHC-oafs, I got a Navy Comm for my "theological teaching ability." I got it at the next command, but that was "dead wrong" and I refused to wear it--I had othersf on better grounds. I refused to wear it because no governmental power should ought invade that arena. But no CO approaches, Norm, the level of training or reading that we have. Nuff there. Too bad the ANZIO Skipper thought otherwise.

Regards, Phil

Posted by: D.Philip Veitch | August 4, 2008 7:19 PM

Norm and Phil

Just a note to say hello. Good to see both of you doing well. Got back from Iraq a few months back have enjoyed catching up with the whole "GK" controvesry. A couple of notes to interject here: My incoming relief at my current command, a conservative Southern Baptist with a lot of ministry experience from the civilian world, who followed GK on ANZIO gave me an insight into GK. Basically he said that Captain Carr was exceptionally good to GK and spent a lot of time with him trying to help him. Likewise his RP1 (a former USMC Infantry Staff Sergeant and also a very conservative Baptist) said the GK provoked everything on ANZIO and the command was extremely patient with him. Having been a company commander and brigade staff officer before I was a chaplain I know that some former line types without a good ministry formation (not just a good theological education) sometimes do badly as chaplains because they have never really worked as ministers under authority in the civilian world. Most of GK's ministry experience (from his Bio on his webpage) was in his own para-church ministry while on active duty in the Air Force going thru Regent's distance education program. The Navy probably did not help him by accessing him without true pastoral experience in a parish or inistutional setting which may have taken off some of his rough edges. Likewise when I first became a Army chaplain before I reduced in rank rank to come in the Navy in 1999 with 3 1/2 years time in grade as a Major there was a requirement that seminary be done in residence. I think that those who go thru distance programs, even good programs lack the experience of poverty as a seminary student as well as the sharpening that comes from getting your butt handed to you by professors and other students in person on a daily basis. I think this is a better formation process than doing stuff in your living room recliner and occasionally doing a seminar while enjoying the full pay and benefits of being an active duty officer. Now I don't believe that giving people opportunity to use use technology to help their education in their present environment is a bad thing, but think that such education has its limitations especially in dealing with other people in person. It is funny being on the Anglo-Catholic side of the house (coming from a Evangelical background) that I have been able to and minister as a priest without any impediment in any command I have served by either line officers or senior chaplains regardless of their denomination. Yes there are some jerks in the Chaplain Corps, some who value status and rank and power more than ministry, but this happens in the civilian world too in every denomination and in some cases you have a better chance of surviving a negative encounter in the military than you might you might in your own church (ask any Baptist who has been on the wrong side of a 51% = God's will vote on his job.)

Anyway, good to talk civilly, I do wish you both well as I do GK in his future ministry. He seems like an incredibly intellingent and gifted man and I hope that he gets with a minister and church who will work with him like a baseball pitching coach to harness his obvious talents and abilities into great works.

Blessings

Steve+

Posted by: Norm and Phil | August 16, 2008 5:44 PM

For Steve:

Thanks for the input and ANZIO insights.

GK was a casualty of war. As was I. But when you study, for example, Bradley and Patton's campaign in North Africa, Spring 1943, with at least 65K casualties, well...freedom has never been without its costs. Studying history surely mollifies responses.

I've also learned throughout these processes that cross-examining witnesses is crucial prior to a deliberative judgment. That is difficult from a distance.

On another thread, if Anglo-Catholic, my good man, may I suggest you track down the Parker Society series of 55 volumes or so on the English Reformation? Wipf and Stock has and is republishing some of them. They were published 1840-1855 in response to the Tractarians. I have done a fair amount of reading on the Oxfordian and the romanticistic, Ivanhoeish "merry ole England", 19th century Victorian AC-movement. FYI, I still use the 1662 and 1928 BCP and studiously avoid TEC or C o E. Nuff there.

If GK received his training via Regent and claims an "evangelical Anglican" perspective, on that point, I would have many, many questions. Western Anglicanism, as we know it, broadly, is over.

Nuff there.

Phil, and to accomodate you, Phil+. Thanks for your insights.

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | August 16, 2008 6:48 PM

For Steve+,

A few things:

1. Not sure what to make of your comments re: theo-formation vis a vis those with previous line officer experience. I saw a former CHC classmate, former USMC line officer, who did NOT adapt well as a chaplain. RADM Al Baker, to the contrary, another classmate of mine, did well.

2. As to post-hoc stories re: GK, I have seen people withdraw once legally and media-wise radioactivity sets in. It's a lemming-like effect. Nuff there though.

3. I thought there might have been more give-and-take thus far, but this appears to be a soliloquy...oh well. As to my suggested reforms, Steve, be advised there are no long lines at my door seeking my opinions...nor do I care.

4. Have been thinking theologically and historically about the matter, not militarily or legally. Bottomline: CARR could have told GK, "Sorry, GK, but I shall have the Roman and Jewish lay readers do some stints at prayer since you insist." I speak of evening prayers for example. I believe GK offerred that solution, but Carr thought otherwise? Unsatisfactory on Carr's part. That 1MC system is owned by the Skipper and he erred. I suppose there were few creative solutions offered by the CHC-levels above GK. Nuff there.

5. As a Calvinist--and I want to rethink this--there are clearly times when one MUST NOT speak in Christ's name. Jesus warned about casting pearls before swine and pigs...rough language that obtains for today, notwithstanding the polite culture of weakness. There were many times when Jesus did not answer. In fact, Mt.10.25ff and the Lucan parallel, Jesus "rejoiced" when reprobates rejected His message...as must we. I recollect preaching on that text in Matt about the pigs. One of my main points was...we must speak at times and with-hold speech at other times. Wisdom and prayer aids with that discernment.

6. In light of my own practice aboard two carriers, I mentioned my policy of every second or third night...praying in His majesty's most sovereign name, King Jesus. I think about every third night, period. Upon review, I think 1MC prayers should be discontinued.

7. Harmartiologically (and Luther's Bondage of the Will, 1525, is premier), anti-Christ reprobates will whine and sniffle. That's a fact. Who, pray tell, is surprised that people objected to GK's Christo-centricity? The mind--religiously--is at war with God (Rom.8.7). A clerk should expect it. GK ran afoul of that dimension also, among others. Preaching in a Chapel will generate it. The preaching of the Gospel is the smell of death to those by-passed in the preteritional decrees. Contrarily, the Gospel is the fragrance of life unto life to the elect.

8. Next post, will develop how I did "combat ministry" with a USMC battalion, to wit, section by section, officer and enlisted, I held "mini-seminar-ettes" in the field. What do I, a Christian Chaplain, tell a lad who is down in a combat zone, sucking chest wounds and eyes rolling back into the head, as he goes to la-la land? Steve, gave em' the Reformational, Romans-Galatians-Hebrews Gospel. Unvarnished. Non-deconstructedly, the non-Bultmanized version. I told the lads, officers and enlisted, straight-up. I then told them, "If you don't want this, what I will tell you when dying, see me after. I don't care. My job is to speak, God's to work. If you opt out, I will honour that. If you opt out, see me after. Be a man and opt out if you don't want this Gospel. Blah, blah." Steve, had one Muslim Marine out of 800 opt out. No secularists, nada. I told em, "Ya wanna die like a dumb dog, that's your choice. U opt out, nobody knows but u and me." Who, pray tell, wants Christ pushed on any Marine, Sailor, Soldier or Airmen? Or Coastie?

9. Having said that, that is why I loath liberal Protestantism and their unabashed, arrogant (and ignorant) takeover of mainline (now sideline and irrelevant) Protestantism. Nuff there.

Steve, as an AC, who r u with? I can tell u some AMiA stories about ignorant TEC clerks seeking admin from the ruthless TEC Bishops.

I hope others will engage here.

Poor Capt Carr. With some good leadership, he could have guided GK rightly and wisely.

I need to comment later about ole' "Father Bob" and his dilemna at the 18-yr mark of his ministry, a CDR Milewski in Seattle, OR. Hahahah! They allowed him to retire with full benefits after a GCM on "lewdness" and "fraternization" charges. The ole' boy paid the financial imposition and retired. Old Father Bob specialized in "alternative stress therapies," to wit, after-hours consultation in his quarters including message therapy. Hahahaha! Nuff there. Indeed, GEN Jones's comment that VADM Norb Ryan's inquiry turned up some really bad stuff in the CHC.

Phil

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | August 18, 2008 10:38 PM

For Ed:

Time to rename this thread. "Continuing absurdity" does NOT obtain. Shall u and I exchange remarks, rebarbative or otherwise? Or shall this thread shut down, given its palpable weaknesses?

Ed, what sayest thou?

It seems to me that enough dust has been created. Tbis conflict needs to move elsewhere. Personally, willing to follow where it might migrate. As to culture wars, note bene, molte bene hominus, you will never destroy people of faith--impossible. Ed, you have some serious solutions offerred in my posts to rid the military of government-entanglements. I support you in this. GK has been in the cross-hairs of a very stupid, ill-conceived govt-religio relationship. It is STUPID to give gov-authority and rank to religious men. This, the Brits understood, despite their Erastianism.

Phil

Phil

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | August 18, 2008 11:44 PM

For Norm:

Where r u, good man? Let us go toe-to-toe on the issues. I can withstand the battering-rams. We ought start with CHAPSCOL issues for GK. Who was running CHAPSCOL? Let's get some phone numbers going. My email is reformation@yahoo.com.

Phil

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | August 19, 2008 12:03 AM

Hello Norm:Sounds like good stuff IRT Mt. Rushmore with grandkids. Custer, a predictable man in combat..."charge." LOL.

A buddy of mine in Appommattox, VA, Anglican man of the first order magnitude, PhD (Oxford), and fellow classmate, resides in a home that Custer temporarily occupied. He found a few older ladies resident and was informed that a few Union bums had been there, drank the wine and whiskey, and were ungentlemanly. Custer physically "whacked em." Good man.

I'll defer on the GK issue given your on-scene presence, but as to the CHC Chiefs, ahem. Al Baker's a good man though.

I'll also stick by the mutually embraced obiter dicta...haha...that is, the substantial testosterone challenged boys in the CHC. I'll bet a month's income on it.

Just at Books-a-Million reading Wall St Journal and the whole rack aft...politics, economics, etc. Still read theo and history and at it daily.

My parents are still living and dad, a retired pastor, 50 years same church, aged 85, still reads academic theo journals. Ya gotta love a guy like that. He's the benchmark for me.

Regards and, perhaps, the whole GK affair may lead to much-needed policy changes in the CHC...as suggested above.

Regards,
Phil
(BTW, Marines called me "Viking"...haha. Lot of men down here with the Wounded Warriors. Nuff there. Back to reading. On another note, though not qual'd, I fell in love with Gov. Sarah Palin.)

Also, CAPT Bryan Weaver was in BAM the other night. Chubbier and grayer. He and I had a falling out. I was waiting for him to come over and ask how and what i was doing. I was ready. Was gonna tell him that "I am a professional asshole to dickheads like yourself." Fortunately for him, he ambled off in another direction. Norm, I've gotten nastier over the years and have more fully come to appreciate Rom.1.18-3.20. Nuff there. If you see or hear of Weaver, you can quote me. He's a dickhead. LOL.

Thanks for inputs and good to hear from you.

Loving retirement, BTW.

PV

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | September 18, 2008 3:31 PM

Ed, Norm, GK, or others:

While we have aerially viewed the NORVA-context--without documents I might add--the questions I have remain.

Who has a current phone number for John, the CO of the Anzio. Also, for Sir-Idiot-in-Chief, RADM Louis "Vito" Iamasshola.

We need some phonecons with recordings.

On standby for inputs. I also want names and current phone numbers on all Chaps through the chain of command from ANZIO to Wash, DC.

Let cowards stand down and men of truth stand up. Norm, looking to you, principally, for leadership here, as a former, senior 06. Klingenschmitt, you too.

A killer for facts and truth,
Veitch

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | September 27, 2008 1:00 AM

Ed:

U still did not rename the forum, a name prejudicial to the conclusion, premises and assumptions. Holcomb's input is one factor. Veitch's is another. On the ground of demanding truthfulness, you need to rename this forum until we have a summary judgement, to wit, an agreement on the facts.

That is a fair request.

Veitch

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | September 27, 2008 1:07 AM

Ed, GK, NH or others.

Reformationtoday@yahoo.com. As to phone numbers, moving over next 45 days.

If this blog forum means anything, we will have far more inputs that GK or NH. Klingenschitt, can u get me a copy of the SCM to Viking, 124 Kemberly Ct., Jacksonville, NC 28546. Norm or Gordon, I will reimburse u for the cost of copying and postage. It will also interest me, to wit, who responds to this.

Ed's forum may not become the pasture of unexamined, unidentified cow-pies (code for Marines = bullshit or for readers of Xenophenon's Anabasis in Greek, kophros tow hippewn). Let's get facts in here.

Veitch

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | September 27, 2008 1:32 AM

norm:what do u have re: phone numbers....since we may assumably agree towards a committment to factual inquiry.What sayest thou?  Let's get the facts.Sorta gettin' bored with the non-responses. Norm, let's get hot man.A Calvinist, Don Bel-anus type (quote me),Veitch

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | September 27, 2008 3:38 AM

Mr. Veitch, nobody's paying attention to this ancient thread any more. The only reason I noticed it was because you spammed up the "recent comments" sidebar with your 8 comments in a row demanding phone numbers, which you are unlikely to receive in this fashion...

Posted by: Squiddhartha | September 27, 2008 4:19 AM

Concur to the above-bloggers. Who really cares? I view the GH-issue as a "sneering paranthesis."

This includes the cuddly-crappification at NORVA. The senior officers were snifflers and whiners from the get-go.Whaaaaaaaa. Where is my bottle?

As to responses with phone=no's. Of course, the senior O's will run like the cowards they are. Where r numbers for Jim? Numbers for all involved? They will be like roaches.

Veitch

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | October 10, 2008 12:15 AM

http://www.prayinjesusname.org/

GH:
May just hop in my beloved-BMW for this event and run north to Richmond, VA, the grand host to many-a-Civil-War-for-freedom-Emancipation. (E.g., Seven Days War, 1862.) I could work the crowd. Would wear my Anglican collar. May bring some other Warriors with me.

Notwithstanding the government's obsessive compulsions of chronic burping (a uniform, after all for GK, but anti-freedoms also on larger front) and the heavy-breathing, Naval pettifoggery (akin to the fogs of the English Channel), Christians will always honour Christ in prayer. Read the stories of Ignatius Polycarp, and Papias--men who sufferred under the Pax Romana of the early decades of Christianity. The Athanasian-Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Creeds are non-negotiables with respect to the Unitarians, Socinians, Arians and others. (Those needing reading lists, email me at reformationtoday@yahoo.com.) Let the chaplaincy nay-sayers keep compulsively burbing, we ain't yieldin' an inch, but gonna move a mile forward.

Tertullian (d. circa 220 AD), "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."

Thanks Navy Chaplaincy! You motivate us! Chaplaincy cowards, we mock you! Chaplaincy pettifoggers, we snort and sniff at your obfuscations! JAGC defenders against our freedoms, we have a justifiable contempt. We are strengthened in our witnesses.

For unbelieving secularists or atheists, we argue little with you since our expectations from you for rational discourse do not exist...we expect reflexive, irrational, and contemptuous disregard by you for us. Constitutionally, as fallen humans, you have no ability to believe. It is not possible for you to believe...non posse non peccare. This is why such little debate or expectation exists for you by those knowing their theology.

However, once upon a time, one might have expected so-called Christian Chaplains to be internally self-consistent, courageous and rational. What we got was obfuscators, bloviators, and cowards. Expectations have been substantively lowered (charitably put). Rather, as noted earlier, there exists for this blogger the "presumption of irregularity, the presumption that time-servers are theological prostitutes, and also the presumption of cowardice." Experience supports this.

Finally, looks like this thread has been buried. Good.

Veitch

compuball.com/av/mansionsofthelord.htm

Theologically, some of us have earned the right to sing this song, along with those who genuinely served in harm's way for freedoms--when it really counted. Correlatively, those anti-freedom Chaplains refusing to support free exercise--when it mattered--are rigourously excluded. Gordon, may be there 1 November 08 to work the crowd. Your's truly, the nail-spitting Warrior.

"The Mansions of the Lord"
Words by Randall Wallace

To fallen soldiers let us sing
where no rockets fly nor bullets wing
Our broken brothers let us bring
to the mansions of the Lord

No more bleeding no more fight
No prayers pleading through the night
just divine embrace, eternal light
in the mansions of the Lord

Where no mothers cry and no children weep
We will stand and guard tho the angels sleep
All through the ages safely keep the mansions of the Lord

---------------------------------------------

(excerpt from "Sgt. MacKenzie" by Joseph Kilna MacKenzie)

Posted by: D.Philip Veitch | October 13, 2008 2:42 PM

Norm:

Got huge guilt over disageeing with u. Huge man. But will stand up to it. Very hard for me. Yet, will NEVER compro theo for u or anyone. Update.

Norm: # 3 kid, David at MEPS, Raleigh, NC, 26 pullups ( like me at 10-12). 100 pushups and 100 situps. 17.45 mins/3 min mile. A real runner. I did 25-min 3-milers as an old man. Norm, this lad eats steel-beams and passes pllets. Uv would like him.

DHV: Wants to be a Marine officer or USA Delta or Ranger Officer. 60 hours for undergrad completed A lad. A double-black belt also. I engaged him and he kicked my ass. Bodily, but not intellectually. I have 220-grad hours like u. He's a laddy.

U'd like this lad. Norm, he kicks ass, like his old man (although intellectually do that). Yet a nothing--NOTHING- - without classicist, Confessional, Protestant thought).

Norm, he is empty without the classical, Christian foundations, including the Veitch-past to 1873, Angl0-evnagelicalism. In fact, US Prot is in trouble. While dealing with PTSD-men, prepping to re-engage on Anglican front. Norm, u r a Viet vet and u know what it means to be "nasty." Hah! gona be nasty.

Norm, some of us Anglican died--were burned at the stake--for the faith. U must extend my salute to Beth.

Let this useless forum be buried. No0rm, number is 910.324.7565. Send me your's.

SF,
Veitch

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | October 21, 2008 10:25 PM

Agent Veitch, We have received your message. Reply is as follows. The startled crow wears a cotton onesie.

-The Kremlin.

Posted by: tincture | October 21, 2008 10:59 PM

Eddy:

Did u ever bleed for freedom? Holcomb did in NAM.

What d u, u fat-assed blogger, know about suffering for freedom? Tell us, Eddy.

Tell us Marines about that, sonny. I just attended the Beirut Memorial with GEN Al Gray. Sonny boy, does this register?

Hah!We laugh at those who have never sufferred for freedom. At least this, GK took a stand and he has my support.

Freedom has a taste to those who sufferred for it that the free will NEVER know. This appears to include u Eddy-boy.

A Kremlin agent,
Veitch

Posted by: d. philip veitch | October 28, 2008 1:55 AM

Eddy-boy will NEVER understand the dreams, invasive and recurring nightmares we warriors have. Or the daily, homocidal ideations we experience....Ed is a punk without experience in the warfare community. Holcomb, second force recon, theologically. U and u alone will get my point...it will go beyond Eddy's skills and capacitie...another theo-illiterate.

For all others, never forget a Vet who sufferred for freedom. It has a taste to those who fought for it that the free will never know...including u Eddy boy.

Your senior,
Veitch

PS...Norm, for u and all fellow-warriors and Vets.
http://compuball.com/av/mansionsofthelord.htm

Posted by: D. Philip Veitch | October 28, 2008 3:09 AM

Actually, really annoyed at those who purport to love freedom, yet never sufferred for it.

So...you people suffer for our freedom so the rest of us Americans won't have to; and now you're annoyed because -- thanks to your efforts and sacrifices -- we don't have to suffer? Dude, get help. Seriously. This sort of incoherent rubbish, and the obsessive manner with which you hammer it out on a three-month-old post, really screams "loony." Oh, and before you hammer out another dozen consecutive posts about your service record, please remember that there are veterans with differing opinions, whose service records are at least as impressive and commendable as yours. Ever heard of a general named Colin Powell? Veterans Against the War?

Also, you should not need to be reminded that the rights you sacrificed to defend are "inalienable," and come from our Creator, not from any merit-points earned by superior suffering. Sez so in our founding documents, remember?

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 28, 2008 9:47 AM

It's always a strange thing, witnessing someone's mind collapsing, over the internet.

Posted by: tincture | October 28, 2008 10:02 AM