Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Everyone's favorite loopy ex-chaplain, Gordon Klingenschmitt, is back in the news again. My friends at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and Americans United have written a joint letter to the Chief of Naval Operations complaining that Klingenschmitt is still using his military status and uniform to promote political causes, which is exactly why he was punished by the Navy in the first place. The full text of the letter below the fold:
April 16, 2009To: Admiral Gary Roughead, United States Chief of Naval Operations
We write today with information concerning Gordon James Klingenschmitt, a former Navy chaplain whom we believe is attempting to create the false impression that he is still an active-duty member of the U.S. armed forces.
As you may know, Klingenschmitt was involved in a dispute with naval officials in 2005-06 over the types of prayers he was expected to offer at public events. After a series of such clashes, Klingenschmitt was removed from the Navy in 2007.
We were surprised, therefore, to see the enclosed e-mail message from Klingenschmitt dated March 30, 2009. The e-mail includes a photo of Klingenschmitt in a naval uniform and it is signed by "Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt."
Anyone reading this message who was unfamiliar with Klingenschmitt's history would assume it was coming from an active-duty chaplain. This appears to be a deliberate attempt on the part of Klingenschmitt to create this impression. He would like to exploit the prestige of the U.S. Navy to promote his latest venture, a website with political content called www.prayinjesusname.org.
This site, which also includes a photograph of Klingenschmitt in uniform, includes an appeal for donations, noting that funds may be given over the Internet via credit cards. (See enclosed screen image of the homepage of Klingenschmitt's Web site, captured April 16, 2009.)
Title 18 USC Sec. 912 Chapter 43 is clear about misuse of military uniforms. Sec. 912 reads, "Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
By using a photo of himself in a naval uniform and signing his appeal as "Chaplain," Klingenschmitt has, we believe, violated this portion of federal law.
We urge you to investigate this matter and fully enforce the law.
Politics
Comments
Maybe he could share a cell w/ Hovind? They could wile away the years chatting about how they're being oppressed.
Posted by: tincture | April 23, 2009 9:11 AM
Sharing a cell with Hovind... Didn't Obama stop torture?
Posted by: Skip | April 23, 2009 9:35 AM
This might be small of me, but the picture of Klingenschmitt in the front page banner on that website makes him look like an anti-bobblehead.... Big Body, TINY head. :-)
Posted by: Lance B | April 23, 2009 11:20 AM
I am so very pleased by this. Klingenschmitt didn't get half the kicking around he deserved - I think he rated a court-martial, for disrespect to a superior officer (our good friend Capt. Holcomb), if nothing else. Now he's volunteered for a second chance at criminal prosecution, with the MRFF and AU to see to it that it stays public. I eagerly await further reports.
Posted by: BobApril | April 23, 2009 4:49 PM
The web site includes the following disclaimer, which is probably sufficient to avoid prosecution.
The disclaimer may have only been added after the complaint (seeing as it mentions it and all), of course.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 23, 2009 5:07 PM
I have had several local pastors/church members contact me regarding Mr. Ks activities. It seems that he peddles his sad, distorted story of persecution and uses that as a basis for soliciting financial contributions. I simply respond to such inquiries by suggesting that they make a critical and rational analysis of the facts and draw their own conclusions. People who are that easily conned probably deserve to be conned!
I continue to notice that Mr. K. has never addressed the fact that he tried to strike a deal with the CNO, stating that he would drop all of his complaints and not mention them in the future if the CNO would give him some financial compensation. When the CNO refused to submit to this attempt at petty extortion, Mr. K. began to elaborate on how he had lost everything and how it was worth sacrificing everything for Jesus and that he would do it all over again!
I also chuckle at the deceit inherent in the reference to self as "Chaps," as though that were a singular term of friendship and endearment attributed to him as one who had won the loyalty and admiration of the crew. In fact, all Navy Chaplains are referred to as "Chaps" by the Navy community at large. The term is used in the same way that Marines use the term "Padre" in reference to the chaplains that serve the Marine Corps. So, even a dishonored chaplain who had been relieved of duty and sent packing by the ship's Commanding Officer would still be referred to as "Chaps."
By the way, I want to take this opportunity to ask if any of you are familiar with Carl Sandburg's poem entitled, "To A Contemporary Bunkshooter"? Sandburg says:
"You come along squirting words at us, shaking your fist and calling us all dam fools so fierce the froth slobbers over your lips . . . always blabbing we're all going to hell straight off and you know all about it.
"I've read Jesus' words. I know what he said. You don't throw any scare into me. I'VE GOT YOUR NUMBER. I know how much you know about Jesus."
In his book, "Behind the Masks: Personality Disorders in Religious Behavior," Wayne Oates says:
"Manipulation and coercion become the tools of conquest for antisocial persons. If acting gracious, cheerful and charming will maneuver and subjugate, that is the way to go. If such behavior fails, frustration of their will to power easily turns into furious, vindictive attacks. The people and institutions around them become tools of power. Religion and its pieties are subordinated to the iron necessities of their personal need to control. Here the antisocial and narcissistic ways of life flow into each other and are hardly distinguishable."
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | April 24, 2009 10:28 AM
Have folks seen Klingenschmitt's counter attack? He says that Micky a hypocrite because the MRFF website has (gasp!) pictures of people in uniform. He provides seven screen shots to "prove" his point and here's the conclusion drawn.
Is he Gordon? Really? Does a single page provided give even the slightest impression that Mikey, or anyone else for that matter, is pretending to be an active duty officer in order to make money? Because I don't see it.
They are not doing the exact same thing Klingenschmitt is accused of. Now, whether or not he's guilty of what Micky and Barry allege I can't say. Being familiar with his story, I look at his picture and see a despicable and dishonored former Navy chaplain. So I'm too close to the question. But I can clearly see there's no hypocrisy in the accusation.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 24, 2009 11:31 AM
I'm working on a rebuttal to Klingenschmitt's ridiculous "proof" that Mikey is doing the same thing he is. We were absolutely hysterical reading this thing last night. I mean, come on, a photo of Mikey in his cadet uniform (and with hair!), one of our board members in a photo that's so old that it's black and white and shows him in a uniform that looks like the one worn by Major Nelson in "I Dream of Jeannie," one of our board members who passed away last year and was shown in his official uniformed photo in an "in memoriam" announcement in our newsletter, and one of a young Navy recruit with a current photo of the same guy right next to it showing him now. Nobody in their right mind would interpret any of these photos as these former military members trying to imply that they are currently in the military.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | April 24, 2009 11:50 AM
I see your problem right there Chris. :)
Posted by: Dave S. | April 24, 2009 12:16 PM
Chris:
You and I both know that this guy will never be honest about anything. Everything is smoke and mirrors, delusional interpretation, spin and distortion of truth and reality. Nevertheless, thanks for trying! Of course, the big lie that continues to obtain in these stories is that he was "fired for praying in Jesus' name in public." Not only was he not "fired" for praying in Jesus' name, he wasn't even mildly penalized for praying in Jesus' name. He was punished for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit, "disobedience of a lawful order. Furthermore, he was not "fired." He failed to maintain a proper ecclesiastical endorsement and was not eligible to be continued on active duty.
This entire escapade was about self-aggrandizement, desire for notoriety and establishment of a sympathy base from which contributions could be solicited.
Do you have a copy of his request that the CNO give him some financial compensation in exchange for his dropping his complaints and not mentioning them again in the future? It neutralizes all his self-righteous claims that he did it all for Jesus and would do it all again. The truth is that he ran up against some Navy Captains with backbones who knew how to deal with his bullying tactics. To put it in crude terms, it appears that there is much truth to the admonition that one ought not to bring a knife to a gunfight!
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | April 24, 2009 12:29 PM
Capt. Holcomb...
You say, "He failed to maintain a proper ecclesiastical endorsement and was not eligible to be continued on active duty."
His justification for being able to call himself "Chaplain" forever is that he's still endorsed as a chaplain by his denomination. Look at the comment above that quotes his new website disclaimer. It says, "He remains endorsed and ordained today as 'Chaplain and Evangelist to America' by his civilian ordaining denomination, the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, so Chaplain remains his valid title."
Is he lying about this, too?
Posted by: Chris Rodda | April 24, 2009 12:39 PM
Chris:
He is endorsed by the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches. They did an immediate endorsement of him when he lost his endorsement from the endorsing agency under which he was ordained and endorsed (an off-brand Episcopal organization). There are some "hocus pocus half-truths and spins" regarding that entire evolution! What K failed to realize was that when a chaplain changes endorsing agencies he/she has to once again be approved by the Navy to serve as a chaplain. Of course, with a record of a courts martial and numerous senior chaplains stating that they would not choose to serve with him if given a choice, made it quite certain that he would not be approved to continue to serve as a Navy Chaplain. The director (or whatever title he holds) of the Full Gospel group has expressed his disdain for the Navy Chaplain Corps on many occasions. As a matter of fact, he said that he had refused to endorse their ministers for service in the Navy but this was not a true statement. Even as he said that, there were 2 or 3 of their chaplains serving in the Navy.
I guess that it is true that he is endorsed by the Full Gospel to serve as "Chaplain and Evangelist to America" (whatever that means). However, I do not know of any Navy Regulation permitting Full Gospel Chaplains and Evangelists to America to wear the uniform of a Navy Chaplain.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | April 24, 2009 12:54 PM
IOW, these clowns are just slapping the title "Chaplain" on their clergy, apparently to obfuscate the issue.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 24, 2009 1:06 PM
This whole conversation is somewhat infantile. So why I choose to join it...
Even CAPT (ret) Holcomb, who also signs his name "CHC", incidentally, has just circuitously stated that Klingenschmitt's use of the word "Chaplain" is not untrue. That's 50% of the AU/MRFF argument rebutted with minimal research. In fact, Klingenschmitt's website has always said he is a "former Navy Chaplain," and it has always had his endorsing organization, even before the addition of this "disclaimer."
Ex nihilo. No one is stating they did, but a misreading of the letter might result in that incorrect conclusion.
I believe Klingenschmitt's rebuttal, while not necessarily well worded, is meant to point out that all he's doing is 'using a photo of himself from several years ago.' This is consistent with what Rodda says Weinstein does; you'll note Rodda's only defense is the age of the photo they use. That's also the second 50% of their argument, rebutted by the MRFF itself.
Klingenschmitt's whole schtick hinges on the fact he was run out of the Navy. To accuse him of attempting to hide that fact is like trying to accuse Ed of attempting to hide the fact he's against laws restricting poker.
Its also worth noting that they use an incorrect citation. Title 10 deals with "misuse of military uniforms," not Title 18. Also, the CNO doesn't enforce the USC, per se. That's the DoJ's job. Such errors might make you forget that this letter was written by a former JAG (military lawyer).
Posted by: JD | April 24, 2009 10:49 PM
Here are some observations from me regarding JD's inability or refusal to directly answer previous questions in this forum. Those questions were simple, in executing their military duties, do military officers have a higher obligation to defend the U.S. Constitution by protecting the religious freedom of the people in their command or instead is their higher calling to proselytize the Christian faith in spite of Constitutional limits to government power when it comes to religious proselytizing. To date in this forum, JD has continuously defended those and their actions that use or attempt to use the power of the federal government to proselytize the Christian faith, even if it denies the religious freedom rights of other Americans, which has me convinced on where his loyalties lay.
JD has consistently provided evidence in previous comments that he is heavily in favor of an environment that promotes the Christianization of the military and to hell with the Constitution of the United States and its guarantee of religious freedoms even when such proselytizing violates military personnel's religious freedom rights. Based on his comment thread responses in the aforementioned link and several previous blog threads in Ed's blog, he appears to desire hiding this latter trait by avoiding any meaningful discussion of military officers' constitutional obligations to defend individual religious freedom rights. Instead JD appears to desire officers attack those very rights by continuously and systemically, along with dishonestly, discrediting the work of those that bring these violations to light.
The evidence for this inference is his avoidance of the topic of an officer's duty to defend these rights when asked, a reliance on rhetorical fallacies rather than reasoned opinions presented within an honest framework, and the falsification of the issues at hand along with misrepresenting others' statements and work, such as Chris Rodda's.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 25, 2009 7:20 AM
JD:
My comment was not made "out of nothing." I was employing "irony" in a manner in which I would assume that the average educated reader would understand. Of course I know that a civilian chaplain is not permitted to wear the uniform of any military service. Your condescending and thinly veiled attempt to provide a "corrective rudder steer" to my comment is really not appreciated. I have read very few of your comments on this blog - actually only those which engage responses and comments that I have made. However, a critical reading of your "stuff" indicates that you disguise your prejudicial sentiments under the rubrics of equality and a fair and balanced assessment of facts. While I believe that the K. issue over a picture is a "tempest in a teapot," I also know from experience that there is "duplicity afoot" and that deception and deceit is at the heart of this issue.
You seem very eager to "major in minors" without any concern for the greater issues of dishonesty and a distortion of why this guy was ultimately processed out of the Navy. His exit had nothing whatsoever to do with religion or with praying in Jesus' name. I can unequivocally, without hesitation, reservation or any attempt at mental or intellectual evasion state that he was never told that he could not pray in Jesus' name. On one occasion I assigned him to pray at a function and advised the Commanding Officer to attend. After the service, the CO told me that he did not have a problem with the prayer. His punishment was for disobedience of a lawful order and nothing else. The same justice would have been applied to you, me or any other military member under the same circumstances.
You defend K on these moot issues simply because you want to "defend Christianity in the military" in a general sense. I don't care that you do that but I would think that honor and honesty would prompt one to "put his cards on the table."
I have served as a Christian minister for almost 40 years and am very secure in my faith beliefs and faith-based lifestyle. However, I am often more inclined to identify with honest non-believers than with self-righteous, pseudo-educated, deceitful, self-aggrandizing, pompous, condescending arrogant asses who deputize themselves as inerrant defenders of the faith.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | April 25, 2009 9:05 AM
"You seem very eager to "major in minors" without any concern for the greater issues of dishonesty and a distortion of why this guy was ultimately processed out of the Navy."
For the record, I agree that Klingenschmitt was court martialed for disobeying a lawful order. Nothing I have ever said has implied any differently. Oddly enough, however, the AU/MRFF letter implies it was "the types of prayers" that were the source of his discharge.
If people want to make "deception and deceit" the issue, that's fine. Then make that the topic of the letter to the CNO. Complaining that he's calling himself "Chaplain" and using an old picture seems to be an exercise in "majoring in the minors."
This is a simple exercise in the truth. His history notwithstanding, the issue is about whether or not he is allowed to use the moniker "Chaplain" and send out emails with an old picture of himself in uniform. He can. Just like you can. Just like any former military member can.
The total disregard for basic facts is what generates the "defense," not the subject person's history. The AU/MRFF research departments couldn't even cite the USC correctly, never mind come to a correct conclusion. Rodda (MRFF's "senior research director") asked you here a question that should have been answered before that letter was even sent.
The letter's assertions are merely an attempt on the AU/MRFF to create a controversy where there is none. It achieves nothing other than hypersensitivity to religious topics with regard to the military and press attention (ironically, none in this case) for the writers.
This is simply another example of the MRFF targeting religious association with the military, and ignorantly using incorrect law to do so. Unanswered, some people might think they were correct. The objective of my "defense" is to demonstrate their error, not defend the subject person. (Likewise, my comment on your statement of civilian Chaplains in uniform was for the benefit of others, not you.)
If the AU/MRFF were to write a letter complaining about Chaplain Yee, a former Army Chaplain who advertises himself on the speaker's circuit as "Chaplain Yee" (with a photo of himself in uniform), my "defense" would be the same. It has nothing to do with specific faiths or specific people. It has everything to do with a basic grasp of the truth.
Posted by: JD | April 25, 2009 11:04 AM
JD:
In fairness to myself and to you, I want to state that I agree with your response above on every point.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | April 25, 2009 11:42 AM
Actually, JD, we were advised by two extremely highly qualified authorities to use Title 18. When I was asked by Mikey which Title I thought it would fall under, I told him that both Titles 10 and 18 address the issue, but I wasn't sure which one we should cite in this instance. Mikey, of course, also knew that both Titles 10 and 18 could apply, but, although an attorney himself, conferred two experts in this area of law, and they collectively decided on Title 18.
My question to Capt. Holcomb was one asked simply out of curiosity, and one whose answer makes no difference in the issue addressed in the letter to the CNO. I had no reason to think that Klingenschmitt's current endorsing body was not the same endorsing body that had allowed him to be a military chaplain. If anything, Klingenschmitt's failure to acknowledge this fact to the people he is trying to solicit money from is just more evidence of his deceptive nature.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | April 25, 2009 12:07 PM
Chris:
Surely you know that if they are doing it for Jesus, it makes no difference whether deception, deceit, untruth or whatever is involved. This brand of evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity is totally committed to the idea that the "ends justify the means." Early on in my career as a chaplain (when I was a Lt junior grade) I saw that the OCF (Officers' Christian Fellowship) fully embraced the "ends justifies the means" philosophy. I also saw that the negative side of that was that they were officers and had great influence over the young enlisted troops. In that respect, they always overstepped constitutional boundaries in hawking Christianity under the influence of their status as officers. Other groups such as Military Campus Crusade for Christ and Navigators would do anything and say anything just as long as it was in the interest of spreading the message of the sweet Jesus! My experience with them confirmed for me that they were, indeed, "liars for Jesus." When I was Command Chaplain at shore bases, I would give them permission to operate on base but would not give them any contributions from the religious offering funds. When I cut the money off, they were soon gone and no longer "called" to represent the sweet Jesus on the base. Interestingly enough, I never had a controversial problem with my Jewish and Muslim communities. They were content to mind their own business and were pleased to have the opportunity to worship according to their faith group beliefs. However, the evangelical/fundamentalist groups were always committed to telling everyone else how wrong they were and how certain they were that they would go to hell if they didn't accept Jesus. Folks can argue that this is not the case in the military but I know for a fact that it certainly is the case. Christianity has received preferential treatment for so long that it now sees itself as being persecuted when told that it must abide by the law and will not be permitted to "bully" its way throughout the military environment.
I agreed with JD on his last post because I thought that he wrote it without betraying an ulterior motive. I believe in being fair, no matter with whom you are dealing and whether or not you agree with them. I have read enough of JDs stuff to know where he is coming from and I am quite sure that we wouldn't agree on much of anything theologically.
As to the issue at hand, I am also certain that solicitation of money is the real issue, even if it is cloaked in the robe of the sweet Jesus.
On the same note, I would caution you folks at MRFF to be vigilant in guarding yourselves against becoming an organization that has notoriety and accumulation of money from a sympathetic reader base as its motivating force. Opportunism afforded via an emotional topic can often lead one to "play loose" with facts in order to increase disciples and funds! On occasion, when reading your MRFF newsletter, I have been reminded of Shakespeare's line from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
The entire world is suffering from a lack of truth. I think that the nature of the times calls for blinding, white-hot, unadulterated truth at every level of our existence.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | April 25, 2009 1:09 PM
Listen to the "godly" Klingenschmitt pray, in Jesus' name, of course, that Mikey's and Barry Lynn's "days be few," and that God "Plunder their fields, and seize their assets" and "Cut off their descendants."
http://prayinjesusname.org/uploads/Image/eveningprayers/ChapsMP042509Sat.mp3
Saturday 25 Apr 09 One-Minute Prayer:
IMPRECATORY PRAYERS AGAINST ANTI-JESUS BARRY LYNN AND MIKEY WEINSTEIN
Let us pray. Almighty God, today we pray imprecatory prayers from Psalm 109 against the enemies of religious liberty, including Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein, who issued press releases this week attacking me personally. God, do not remain silent, for wicked men surround us and tell lies about us. We bless them, but they curse us. Therefore find them guilty, not me. Let their days be few, and replace them with Godly people. Plunder their fields, and seize their assets. Cut off their descendants, and remember their sins, in Jesus’ name. Amen.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | April 25, 2009 1:12 PM
This says more about the one praying than it does about the subjects of the prayer. In fact, it is not even a prayer. It is a diatribe reflecting a narcissistic, messianic complex. How do you think this "thought pattern" would score on a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory? Can you imagine a pastor uttering such bitter foolishness in the presence of his flock? Of course, if you've never been a pastor and had the privilege of serving people you wouldn't know much about something like that.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | April 25, 2009 2:34 PM
Mikey's response to Klingenschmitt's "prayer" is that it's not a prayer, it's a fatwa!
Posted by: Chris Rodda | April 25, 2009 2:44 PM
Klingenschmitt's imprecatory prayer reveals two characteristics I've found in every single Christian social conservative I have ever encountered since I started analyzing them, with one exception to date (I've only been doing this for several months): They are rankly dishonest, and they project.
Here we see Klingenschmitt falsely accuse the defenders of religious liberty to be its enemies when in fact it is Klingenschmitt who wanted to, and continues to attempt to use the power of government to leverage his proselytization efforts.
I did not come to this conclusion about these character traits quickly, but only after decades of observing this behavior. A relatively short while ago I started to attempt to track the rate I'd find these traits and quickly realized that I didn't need to measure the rate but instead attempt to find exceptions - where after several months I've discovered only Dr. Gregg Frazer posting mostly at American Creation (he created the term "theistic rationalist" which better defines many of our founding framers' religious beliefs rather than then previously broadening the deist and Christian labels to the point those terms become almost unrecognizable).
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 25, 2009 11:15 PM