Vindicated: Navy Finds No Fault in Christian Chaplain Who Comforted Dead Sailor's Family — Charisma News

In their recent coverage concerning the Modder Matter, Charisma made the following statement,

While the Liberty Institute defended Chaplain Modder against these bogus charges in Navy proceedings, AFA Action Alert supporters flooded members of Congress with an amazing 75,395 emails, faxes and phone calls, urging that elected officials stop this witch hunt by homosexual hate.

There's no doubt that elected officials got involved as a result of the urging of these supporters. We know that many representatives and senators contacted Navy leaders after hearing from them.

Today, we're pleased to announce that the U.S. Navy has completely exonerated Chaplain Modder from the bogus charges!

I want you to read that again, focusing on this, "AFA Action Alert supporters flooded members of Congress with an amazing 75,395 emails, faxes and phone calls,,, U.S. Navy has completely exonerated Chaplain Modder" and it's implications for future jurisprudence.

Since when does public sentiment - 75,395 emails, faxes and phone calls - have any say in a matter before a court (whether military or civilian).

Politically-correct forces want to drive religious liberty and influence from key areas of American society, including the U.S. Military.

As Chaplain Modder’s legal defense moves forward, Americans need to support Chaplain Modder and stand up for the religious freedom of chaplains, and other brave members of our armed forces.

Please sign the “STOP THE UNLAWFUL ACTION AGAINST CHAPLAIN WES MODDER, AN AMERICAN HERO” petition below, addressed to The Hon. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the United States Navy.

The law is on the side of Chaplain Modder, all chaplains, and all members of the U.S. Military who want to exercise their faith.  But a public outcry is needed to wake up officials so that violations like this come to a stop. [Emphasis in original]

Since when are members of the judiciary allowed to become activist judges? Oh, that's right, when the ruling suits those within the Reich and their agenda.  "Today, we're pleased to announce that the U.S. Navy has completely exonerated Chaplain Modder from the bogus charges!"  And no, I am not insinuating that took place in this case,

But a high-level review at Navy Personnel Command rejected the commander's recommendation to fire the chaplain, a move that will clear the way for Modder to retire in good standing as he nears his 20th year of service.

Top Navy officials said there was limited hard evidence of Modder's alleged misconduct. Investigating chaplains is uniquely difficult because conversations between service members and chaplains are typically considered confidential.

"There is no documentation of poor performance in his personnel record," said one official familiar with the investigation, who asked for anonymity to discuss a personnel decision.

But what I find so fascinating, the hypocrisy of it all - activist judge(s) for me, not for thee - forgetting what Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once opined, in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005).

By enforcing the Clauses, we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat. At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish.,,, Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?
,,,
When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship. In the marketplace of ideas, the government has vast resources and special status. Government religious expression therefore risks crowding out private observance and distorting the natural interplay between competing beliefs. Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs. Tying secular and religious authority together poses risks to both.

It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs. But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment,,, There is no list of approved and disapproved beliefs appended to the First Amendment—and the Amendment’s broad terms (“free exercise,” “establishment,” “religion”) do not admit of such a cramped reading. It is true that the Framers lived at a time when our national religious diversity was neither as robust nor as well recognized as it is now. They may not have foreseen the variety of religions for which this Nation would eventually provide a home. They surely could not have predicted new religions, some of them born in this country. But they did know that line-drawing between religions is an enterprise that, once begun, has no logical stopping point. They worried that “the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects.”. The Religion Clauses, as a result, protect adherents of all religions, as well as those who believe in no religion at all.*

In other words, what O'Connor and the Court is saying, no activist judges (or politician for that matter) in regards to maintaining the wall between religion and government.  They must remain neutral and rule according to applicable law and precedent.  This point echoes O'Connor's concurrence in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) as well.

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community,,, The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message. 

But here is the kicker and why I say that the Reich is being hypocritical in their stance concerning the Modder Matter and other faux persecution case (cough,,,cough,,,Kim Davis).  The losing lawyer in McCreary, none other than Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel.  Though not associated professionally with Kelly Shackelford's Liberty Institute, they are compadres within the Reich and share the same agenda.  What was being argued, a reformulation or abandonment of the "Lemon test"  as set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which applies to religious displays on government property and to other Establishment Clause issues.

Although Shackelford et al prevailed in this case, the tactics employed - petitioning those within the political and judiciary community - are clearly outside the bounds of established precedent.  The Reich can bitch all they want about activist judges, but before they do they need to take a very long look in the mirror.
_____

*FYI:: In November 2010, counties in Kentucky filed a new appeal to the Supreme Court. In February 2011, the Supreme Court without comment declined to review the case.

Vindicated: Navy Finds No Fault in Christian Chaplain Who Comforted Dead Sailor's Family — Charisma News

ADDENDUM::Lesbian judge takes on Jesus in court

“Is anybody surprised that a new Obama appointee and liberal judge ruled that a Navy chaplain can be legally punished for his sermons, punished for writing to Congress, and punished for praying in Jesus’ name in uniform?” he asked.

“Although Judge Elaine Kaplan ruled against me, at least she affirmed how I was vindicated by the U.S. Congress, who rescinded [military regulation] 1730.7C after it was enforced against me in the Navy court,” he continued.

“She also admitted in her ruling that the government really did punish me, a Navy chaplain, for quoting the Bible in chapel, which would be protected by the First Amendment, but this judge refused to correct the Navy’s obvious abuse of power.

“She also acknowledged that I had written permission to wear my uniform during ‘public worship’ but that my prayers offered in Jesus’ name at a press conference did not qualify as ‘public worship,’” he said.

“Finally, she acknowledged I was punished for writing to my congressman and the president, but again claimed she didn’t have jurisdiction to enforce whistleblower laws. My lawyer and I plan to immediately appeal this bad ruling, and again later if necessary all the way to the Supreme Court,” Klingenschmitt told WND.

Lesbian judge takes on Jesus in court

ADDENDUM::Chaplain vows to continue fight to restore his career

He is delusional. Points not mentioned:

• Had he attended the event in civilian garb, there would have been no problem, but Klingenschmitt’s use of his uniform was a clear violation of military regulations.
• Navy officials decided to ease Klingenschmitt out of the service. After the Evangelical Episcopal Church pulled its endorsement of Klingenschmitt, Navy officials decertified him as a chaplain, and he was separated from the U.S. Navy.
• Kaplan also rejected Klingenschmitt’s claim that his religious-freedom rights were violated. She noted that he has been ordered not to wear his uniform at a political event and added, “The Order did not limit Dr. Klingenschmitt’s right to engage in any religious practices

The former chaplain, who now heads The Pray in Jesus Name Project, believes his career was ended simply because he is a man of prayer.

Klingenschmitt, Gordon (former Navy chaplain)"I sued the domestic enemies of the Constitution in the DC Court of Claims to redeem my career [and] to redeem my pension after I was robbed by people who punished me for quoting the Bible in chapel," he tells OneNewsNow. "[I was robbed] by people who punished me for praying in Jesus' name in uniform outside of chapel."

But Klingenschmitt says even though Congress subsequently rescinded the policies that cost him his military career, the judge refused to rule in his favor.

"That victory was never grandfathered back to my case," he laments. "... The judge recognized that but said that she did not have jurisdiction to review that policy because it was no longer in effect.

"So how can they punish you for a policy and then not give you freedom from that policy after it was rescinded by Congress?"

Chaplain vows to continue fight to restore his career

Unsuccessful Maneuvers: Ex-Navy Chaplain’s Latest Lawsuit Fails | Americans United

This is what happens when individuals do not use their brains in choosing a political candidate. We end up with a political representative whose entire career and religious ministry is based on a lie. Way to go Colorado!!

This ruling has been a long time coming. Hard to believe it has taken eight years,,,__

In the spring of 2006, Klingenschmitt appeared at a right-wing rally in Washington, D.C. He was wearing his uniform at the time. Had he attended the event in civilian garb, there would have been no problem, but Klingenschmitt’s use of his uniform was a clear violation of military regulations.

Klingenschmitt’s appearance at the rally was the final straw for Navy officials. He had been causing trouble for a long time and was not considered an effective chaplain. A 2004 poll of service personnel on the USS Anzio, where Klingenschmitt then served, reaped numerous negative comments, among them “worst CHAP I have seen in 17 years,” “would never seek counsel from CHAPS,” and “he is one of the worst CHAPs I have seen.”

Navy officials decided to ease Klingenschmitt out of the service. After the Evangelical Episcopal Church pulled its endorsement of Klingenschmitt, Navy officials decertified him as a chaplain, and he was separated from the U.S. Navy.

Unhappy about this, Klingenschmitt filed a number of administrative challenges and lawsuits, but they have not been successful. Last week, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected his most recent suit.

Judge Elaine D. Kaplan noted that Navy officials outlined in detail the reasons why they sent Klingenschmitt packing.

“Based on these recommendations and the entire record, the Assistant Secretary (acting pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Secretary) determined that Dr. Klingenschmitt was ‘professionally unsuited for further service as a naval officer and chaplain,’” wrote Kaplan in the ruling for Klingenschmitt v.United States of America.

Kaplan noted that Navy officials scored Klingenschmitt’s “performance and disciplinary record (including his fitness reports and court-martial conviction) as well as the lack of support for him in his chain of command.” The judged cited a 2006 fitness report that graded Klingenschmitt “below average in the area of military bearing/character.” The same report found that his “recent professional performance has been unsatisfactory.”

The assistant secretary of the Navy, Kaplan pointed out, “also relied on Dr. Klingenschmitt’s court-martial conviction for violating the lawful order of a superior commissioned officer in connection with the March 2006 media event at Lafayette Park. Finally, the Assistant Secretary also relied upon the fact that ‘the Chief of Chaplains, your community leader, recommended denial of recertification and processing you for administrative separation.’ He concluded that Dr. Klingenschmitt ‘d[id] not possess the character, leadership, or professional traits needed to successfully serve as a naval officer.’”

Kaplan also rejected Klingenschmitt’s claim that his religious-freedom rights were violated. She noted that he has been ordered not to wear his uniform at a political event and added, “The Order did not limit Dr. Klingenschmitt’s right to engage in any religious practices (including presenting an opening prayer at the event or invoking the name of Jesus in his prayer). It simply prohibited Dr. Klingenschmitt from engaging in this activity while wearing his uniform at what was clearly a political event and not, as Dr. Klingenschmitt seems to suggest, a bona fide religious service.”

Unsuccessful Maneuvers: Ex-Navy Chaplain’s Latest Lawsuit Fails | Americans United