Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've been having an amusing exchange with former Navy chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt on the religion law listserv. The man is almost impossibly ridiculous. The discussion began when someone posted a link to an article about the Texas State Board of Education refusing to issue guidelines for the Bible courses they've approved. I replied with the following comment:
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.
And Klingenschmitt, ignoring the fact that the purpose of the religion law listserv is to discuss the legal issues, replies with this idiotic screed:
Ed writes about teaching about the Bible (as an optional elective) in public schools, "the result is going to be very ugly and very expensive."Yet leading cultural indicators show that since 1960 in America, violent crime has increased by 560 percent, illegitimate birth rates have increased more than 400 percent, teen suicide is up over 200 percent, the divorce rate has more than doubled, and the percentage of families headed by a single parent has more than tripled.
It seems to me, thanks to courts and judges that enforce state atheism and Ed's social experiment upon our families and children, by taking Bibles and prayer OUT of public schools, that...
"the result has already been very ugly and very expensive."
In Jesus name,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
As usual, he gets almost everything wrong. I didn't say that it would be ugly and expensive to teach about the Bible; I said it would be ugly and expensive to teach about the Bible without clear guidelines for local schools to follow in order to avoid constitutional problems. His statistics are also miles away from reality; most of those measurements have in fact been going down for the past twenty years or so.
And of course, there's his absurdly simplistic post hoc argument that blames all of this on "taking Bibles and prayer out of public schools." He's wrong about that too. Bibles and prayers are allowed in public schools and are found in every public school in the nation every single day. The fact that the school can't require students to read the Bible or to engage in prayer does not mean they've been banned; Klingenschmitt seems to have a difficult time grasping the distinction.
I replied to his message with this:
This list is for discussion of the legal and constitutional issues, not for the imagined social consequences. I'm afraid you'll have to peddle the myth that the country went to hell when we "kicked God out of schools" to a different (perhaps less educated) audience.
Which prompted this reply from him:
1) Brayton seems to be confusing "myth" with "statistical correlated fact," that when we stopped teaching Biblical morality, children stopped behaving according to Biblical morality. Nobody here disputes violent crime, divorce, teen pregnancy, teen suicide, and single-parenthood have increased since 1960. If nobody here cares (as Ed supposes) about the social consequences of radical interpretations, we truly have become a cold, calloused, nation of selfish lawyers indeed.2) Brayton's view that Bibles should be banned from schools remains on the "atheist fringe" of constitutional legal scholars, including the U.S. Supreme Court has held that public schools may teach students about the Bible as long as such teaching is "presented objectively as part of a secular program of education." (6School District of Abington Twp v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963). See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980) (per curiam)).
3) This permissive view Supreme Court view is endorsed by both liberal and conservative legal scholars, in Charles' excellent document "The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide" (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6261) including:
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Anti-Defamation League
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs
Christian Educators Association International
Christian Legal Society
Council on Islamic Education
National Association of Evangelicals
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
National Council for the Social Studies
National Education Association
National School Boards Association
People for the American Way Foundation
Union of American Hebrew Congregations4) When Brayton places himself far left of People for the American Way, you can tell he's on the fringe, and I'm in the mainstream. But at least he's "highly educated," unlike the rest of these organizations, who seem to agree with me.
Again, virtually every single claim in this is false. My reply:
When Mr. Klingenschmidt says that "nobody here disputes violent crime, divorce, teen pregnancy, teen suicide and single parenthood have increased since 1960" he is being quite presumptuous. I certainly dispute it; so, I suspect, do many on this list and so, unfortunately, does reality. On nearly all of those measurements, we saw a steady increase in the first half of that time period and a steady decrease in them over the last half. We can argue until we are blue in the face about the innumerable factors that contribute to such trends (economic factors, social factors, demographic factors, etc) but I would suggest that it is entirely too simplistic and, quite frankly, ridiculous to believe that the answer is as easy as "we took the Bible out of schools and the world went to hell."When he writes that my view is on the "atheist fringe" I'm afraid he is wrong on every possible facet of that claim. First, I'm not an atheist. Secondly, it is not my view that Bibles should be banned from schools at all. I certainly support the Supreme Court ruling banning mandatory Bible reading, but that position is hardly on the "atheist fringe" of anything. I am in fact a supporter of Bible as literature courses in public schools provided they are taught, as the law requires, in a scholarly and objective manner rather than in a proselytizing manner. Perhaps in the future before discussing "Brayton's view," Mr. Klingenschmidt might take the time to find out what that view actually is. It seems to me that is both the ethical and the intellectually honest thing to do.
Ethical and intellectually honest are not, of course, words one often finds associated with Klingenschmitt. And the best is yet to come. Klingenschmitt then posts a new message to the listserv declaring Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'In Jesus' Name'. It was a press release about an appeals court decision that upheld the authority of the city council of Fredericksburg, Virginia to require that prayers that open their council meetings be non-sectarian.
Doug Laycock, one of the preeminent church/state scholars in the nation, beat me to making the obvious reply: the appeals court banned nothing, nor did the city council. People no doubt pray in Jesus' name every day in homes and churches around Fredericksburg. The appeals court only said that because the city controls the agenda, they can in fact set limits on the nature of the prayer. This, of course, is typical of Klingenschmitt's need to distort every ruling that doesn't fit his absurd viewpoint.
Part of me feels almost bad. After all, taking on Gordon Klingenschmitt in any contest that requires rational thinking is like challenging Stephen Hawking to a wrestling match.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: WScott | July 24, 2008 9:50 AM
My goodness. What a total fool. How did someone as stupid as Klingenschmitt ever learn to master human speech and writing? It boggles the mind. At least he's not spreading his stupidity and poison in the Navy anymore.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 24, 2008 9:52 AM
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
...when we stopped teaching Biblical morality, children stopped behaving according to Biblical morality.
Yeah, right, kids followed the Ten Commandments and the Levitican code to the letter back in the good ole days before libruls ruined everything. Right?
Klingenschmitt also seems oblivious to the fact that the Bible was NOT removed from church-owned private schools, which, in some districts, have nearly as many students as the public schools. Were all of his made-up stats taken only from the performance of public-school kids? Funny, Klingenschmitt doesn't say...
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 24, 2008 10:08 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
Most of the Jim Crow laws were struck down in the late 50s and into the 60s, maybe this is the correlation that we should be looking at and return the country to legally enforced segregation.
Perhaps more importantly, fundamentalists weren't politically organized in the 60s, since then they have become more organized, clearly a correlation that points to the root cause of social decay as the politization of the religious right.
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | July 24, 2008 10:21 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
Ed:
I've said all this before but I just have to tell you that I always get a chuckle out of this guy's ability to generate new foolishness in a non-stop fashion! As his supervisor for 2 years I began each day with some new paranoid delusional claim/complaint/grievance placed under my office door to greet me upon arrival. And one of the sad things was that he always had his mind made up based on his perception and was impervious to facts and truth that overwhelmingly prevailed in pointing out how wrong he was on certain issues. For any educated, rational thinker he did (and evidently still does) present as a totally frustrating individual. Of course, you know that the terms "ethical honesty" and "intellectual honesty" have no place in his arguments.
I notice that he cites a long list of references. I suppose you know that he is a student at Pat Robertson's Regent University and has access to the school's library (including the law library). It appears to me that he continues to be "starved" for attention and wants to be a "star" in the "right-wing religious fringe lunatic galaxy." However, he has had his "15 minutes of recognition" and he paid for it dearly. He will not be heard or recognized by anyone except those of his own ilk. Trying to carry on an intelligent discussion with him reminds me of the old saying about trying to teach a pig to sing: "It just makes the pig angry and gets you dirty." And Ed, I would like for you to know that Klingenschmitt trying to argue with you or refute your reason is like "a dog barking at a train."
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret)
Posted by: CAPT NORM HOLCOMB, CHC, USN (Ret) | July 24, 2008 10:44 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
Wait. . .you're not an atheist? How did I miss this?
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | July 24, 2008 11:07 AM
How does one get on this listserv?
Posted by: Joey | July 24, 2008 11:23 AM
Ed, Can you share the contact info for that mailing list with us? Sounds like a fun read. :-)
Posted by: Lance | 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
Funny how he likes the post hoc argument about the removal of Bibles from schools, but probably won't like a similar argument about abstinence only "education" and STD rates, sexual activity, teen pregnancy....
Posted by: BaldApe | July 24, 2008 11:41 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
could a school district perhaps sue the state board arguing that providing just such guidelines is their job, since they approved the courses, and they're negligent in not doing it? i'd guess they'd be a bit less likely to succeed than the devil to catch frostbite, but would the suit be thrown out of court on the face of it or proceed?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 24, 2008 12:13 PM
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
Can you believe that even with this title, and the second sentence containing the words "impossibly ridiculous", I was still taken aback by what Klingenschmitt wrote?
Posted by: Beowulff | July 24, 2008 12:20 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
The listserv is archived publicly:
http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 24, 2008 12:27 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
Adrienne,
I bet that Ed is a Sam Harris atheist. An atheist who sees no need for the term. (We don't have a-astrologists, we just have regular people.)
Posted by: Chris Bell | July 24, 2008 12:38 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
So, The Bible is taken out of schools then problems go up for a couple of decades then start coming down.
Hmm, they start coming down after a couple of decades, about the same time it took the Bible-free kids to start getting out of school and being in a position to really impact on those statistics.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | July 24, 2008 1:31 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
Sorry, that should read 'how come you are a deist?'
Posted by: Felix | July 24, 2008 1:45 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
Even some people who support the Supreme Court's decision against mandatory prayer and Bible-reading refer to it as "taking prayer and Bible-reading out of the schools," which just drives me up the wall. Why do they do it? It only adds fuel to the prayer-pushers' fire.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 24, 2008 2:11 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
Just came across more evidence of dishonesty by Klingenschmitt.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | July 24, 2008 4:24 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
I wonder if he'd explode if you presented him with the FBI's statistics showing that violent crime fell precipitously during the Clinton presidency.
Posted by: Julian | July 24, 2008 5:45 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
For wrestling like Stephen Hawking, I seem to have pinned Ed to the mat, at least twice in this debate.
First, he started out atheist, and now claims he's not an atheist (causing several people to wonder). This is equivalent to conversion, since I've forced Ed to publicly proclaim his belief in God.
Second, he started out criticizing optional Bible classes in public schools, and now he claims he's a strong advocate for teaching "about" the Bible in public schools.
If he keeps moving to the right like that, forget assuming power over Americans United; pretty soon he'll qualify to take over Pat Robetsons 700 Club!
In Jesus name,
Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Posted by: Gordon James Klingenschmitt | July 24, 2008 6:33 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 Klingenschmitt wrote:
As usual, your grasp of reality is non-existent. Please quote me calling myself an atheist anywhere in any exchange with you on any subject. You can't because no such quote exists. that will not, of course, lead you to withdraw your claim because you clearly lack the intellectual honesty required to do so. And no, I did not "publicly proclaim" my "belief in God." I am a deist, as I have been for a very long time. I do not believe in your absurd conception of god.
Once again, reading comprehension proves your downfall. I did not, here or anywhere else, criticize "optional Bible classes in public schools." I criticized a state school board for authorizing Bible classes in public schools without providing specific guidelines that will prevent those schools from violating the law.
It's rather difficult to know which is a more prominent part of your personality, your presumptuousness or your delusions.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 24, 2008 6:46 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
Umm, Gordon? Ed didn't convert between your conversation with him and now, and he's blogged repeatedly about being a deist before. It's not like you outed him or something.
Is it really that hard to grasp the difference between being concerned about Bible classes having no standards, and being against teaching about the Bible altogether? Or are you just trying to blame your lack of reading comprehension on someone else? It doesn't speak well of you that you chose to do that, rather than simply admitting you were mistaken about Ed's position.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 24, 2008 6:50 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
Klingenschmitt is clearly a Satanist, posing as a Christian to make Christians look bad. No Christian would lie so shamelessly and often as Klingenschmitt does.
Posted by: Irving Schwartz | July 24, 2008 7:58 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
"You don't have to adopt "my version" of God......"
Well that's the nub of the entire issue, and has been since the US was founded.
No doubt, you and Ed and I all have different versions, different pictures, different opinions of God, as indeed some people have no opinion at all.
It is a great step to move from thinking that you really understand everything to being willing to co-exist respectfully with others, to allow others to have different, and even contradictory perspectives than oneself.
Posted by: david s | July 24, 2008 8:09 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
Mr Klingenschmitt, you have things backasswards. The Trouble All Started in 1954 when I was in second grade and was forced - FORCED, I say - to relearn the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under God" stuck in the middle. I, and a great host of my second-grade cohort with me, grew up to be Dirty Hippies who smoked dope. Some of them even got laid without being married, I hear.
Nothing at all to do with any alleged "taling prayer out of schools." All those Modern Troubles are from putting dieties in pledges......
Posted by: Coragyps | July 24, 2008 8:36 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
Ed wrote:
Gordon comes up with:Gordon, you're either a liar, an idiot, or both. My money's on both.Posted by: Taz | July 24, 2008 9:16 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
the usual slur on religious people is that they are willing to lie for their god, an act us less religious folk consider distasteful.
i'm coming to the conclusion that whatever Gordon is lying for, no god is involved. he's lying, to be sure, but i don't think even he associates his lies with his deity. something rather more pitiful, i suspect, is his driving motivation.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 24, 2008 10:22 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
Actually yes I do because if I am not mistaken we have GWs words that we can read for ourselves on the matter. There were many traditional Christians back then who wanted to remake GW into one of them which he wasn't. These were the words Mulenberg probably referred to:
"To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good."
I explained the context behind this quotation here. Washington wasn't saying he believed in orthodox Trinitarian Christianity but rather equated Christianity with mere morality. Whenever Washington says nice things about Christianity, it is ALWAYS in the context of equating it with morality or praising religion for its utilitarian effects and NEVER in the context of endorsing orthodox doctrines or Christ as the only way to God. This is a subtle nuance that many miss. This permitted GW and the other key Framers to be both at once very "Christian" friendly while still being equally friendly to other religions. Orthodox Trinitarian Christianity is not friendly to other religions. It believes itself true and other religions false; it is a "narrow" path. This was not at all the religion of GW and the other key Framers.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 25, 2008 12:07 AM
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 Klingenschmitt wrote:
We've gained no ground and I'm not your brother. What you're missing is the distinction between a deist and a theist. A theist believes in God; a deist believes in god (though I wouldn't even use that term, with or without being capitalized). As a deist, I believe that something created the universe, but I do not believe in any sort of anthropomorphic conception of god. I see no reason to believe that whatever created the universe either knows or cares about our existence, or even that it still exists itself.
I think your version of God is ridiculous. I think the notion that God has a version of God is equally ridiculous. And I see no reason to believe that whatever created the universe, whether you call it god or not, wants anyone to pray to it.
By "God's version of himself" you, of course, really mean your version of God, which you mistakenly believe is THE version of God. But that conception is patently absurd, as are your beliefs about virtually everything.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 25, 2008 12:15 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
Whooops. I meant to italicize the second quotation. Do you see the difference between you and GW, Gordon? Even assuming GW was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian (which I don't think he was) he was very sensitive when speaking to and on behalf of other folks to use God talk with which they would feel comfortable such that he DIDN'T pray in Jesus name or pray in an exclusively Christian manner.
I remember reading some WND op-eds about your case I think from John Whitehead arguing something like forcing you to pray generically was like "establishing" a unitarian religion. I don't think he realized the irony that we'd just be establishing America's Founding civil religion, the creed of America's key Founders who likewise never publicly prayed in Jesus' name.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 25, 2008 12:41 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 2:32 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
Mr. Klingenschmitt cites an article by David Barton to support his claims. As Mr. Brayton, Mr. Rowe and others have pointed out previously on this blog, Mr. Barton is a congenital liar and nothing that he writes has any credibility. But Mr. Klingenschmitt, like Josef Goebbels, believes that if one is going to tell a lie, make it a big one, tell it often and loudly and people will eventually come to believe it.
Posted by: SLC | July 25, 2008 9:18 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
To the Klingenschmitts of the world, one's actual beliefs do not matter. If you disagree, you can't be anything but a godless, baby-eating, blood-lusting, work-on-Sunday atheist.
Klingenschmitt usually assumes I'm atheist when I respond, too. I find his responses offensive, and generally refrain from any correspondence.
Being called "atheist" whenever one disagrees with a self-proclaimed Christian, right-wing dominionist is just par for the course. Like everything else they say, it bears only accidental correlation with reality.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 25, 2008 4:04 PM
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
Re Klingenschmitt's continued sign-off which includes, "In Jesus' name". My immediate reaction after reading so many lies and distortions in his writings and then being confronted with that phrase in his sign-off was the bible verse, "Jesus wept".
It's hard to imagine a worse non-violent advocate for a cause than this guy (though I'm sure Ed will find them if they're out there, probably through WND which is the gift that keeps on giving).
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 25, 2008 5:45 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
Re Retired Captain Holcomb
I have a question for Captain Holcomb. How could he put up with a schmuck like Klingenschmitt for 2 years?
Posted by: SLC | July 25, 2008 8:09 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
Re Klingenschmitt
"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."
This tells the readers everything they would want to know about fucktard Klingenschmitt. That was not his job as a chaplain in the secular US Armed Forces. Had Mr. Klingenschmitt attempted to bring me to Joshua of Nazareth, I would have kicked his fucking teeth in.
Posted by: SLC | July 25, 2008 10:30 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
If you are going to count the souls you supposedly saved, and given your record on telling the truth I doubt every claim you make, I'd advise you to count how many you scared off as well - I'd bet the score was overwhelmingly against you. Also, anyone whose ever taken a comparative religion class also knows how susceptiple young service people are in the early stages of their military career to intense religious proselytazation - it works just as effectively for Muslim radicals or the Maori tribesmen; so you might want to review those you claimed to have saved to see if they still share your beliefs, I'd bet the fall-out rate is pretty high after several years.
As for your Washington claim, you have some serious studying to do prior to your ever getting any slack from this group on the character of GW before you attempt to mischaracterize Washington's position on his beliefs about Jesus like you do here. Your claim above completely misrepresents GW's position to appear to mimic your own, rather than putting it into the context of his entire documentary record, how his position evolved over time, and how much he delegated the words of his speeches to