Chaplains banned from using Jesus name in prayer

[Don9of11]

I received an email from my brother which is a chain email much like a chain letter which I despise. Anyways, its from my brother so I opened it and read it. It states that the ACLU has filed suit to stop military chaplains from using Jesus’s name in public prayer and to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed. In this day and age I wouldn’t be surprised if this is true. Does anyone know for sure if this is factual or just a spoof to clog up our inbox’s?

 

[HappyRevert]

I took a look on snopes.com to check the validity but I couldn’t find it. See if you can put some keywords from the original e-mail into snopes and see if you get a hit.

 

[Drawmack]

I received an email from my brother which is a chain email much like a chain letter which I despise. Anyways, its from my brother so I opened it and read it. It states that the ACLU has filed suit to stop military chaplains from using Jesus’s name in public prayer and to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed. In this day and age I wouldn’t be surprised if this is true. Does anyone know for sure if this is factual or just a spoof to clog up our inbox’s?

I agree with the response you already got check snoopes.com. Additionally, no matter how believable, you are best to assume that any chain email is false.

 

[Godfollower]

I received an email from my brother which is a chain email much like a chain letter which I despise. Anyways, its from my brother so I opened it and read it. It states that the ACLU has filed suit to stop military chaplains from using Jesus’s name in public prayer and to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed. In this day and age I wouldn’t be surprised if this is true. Does anyone know for sure if this is factual or just a spoof to clog up our inbox’s?

From Snopes.com:

Claim: The ACLU is seeking to have cross-shaped headstones removed from federal cemetaries.
Status: False.

Snopes discusses the issue in depth, explaining how this rumor came to be. It even points to an ACLU website specifically stating that the ACLU is not seeking such a removal:

Why does the ACLU want to remove crosses from federal cemeteries?

The ACLU has never pursued the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. In fact, following lawsuits filed by the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Department of Veterans Affairs agreed to allow family members to include a religious symbols on headstones.

The ACLU has long argued that veterans and their families should be free to choose religious symbols on military headstones – whether Crosses, Stars of David, Pentacles, or other symbols – and that the government should not be permitted to restrict such religious expression in federal cemeteries.

Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The ACLU vigorously defends peoples’ freedom to choose the religious symbols of their choice. The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I can’t find anything about the ACLU trying to prohibit military chaplains from using Jesus’ name in public prayer, but it sounds odd; what public prayers are involved? The ACLU has written to the Naval Acadamy to protest mandatory prayer at the noontime meals, but that was a protest against prayer per se, not against a specific type of prayer.

According to The Washington Post, there was a federal investigation of the Air Force Academy because various officials were proselytizing their evangelical Christian beliefs; but the investigation took the form of “You shouldn’t be promoting your beliefs against the cadets’ will,” not “You can pray, just not to Jesus.”

 

[antonivs]

From a 2006 story from the Washington Post:

In a Feb. 21 instruction to commanders, the secretary of the Navy distinguished between prayers given by chaplains at “divine worship services” – on which there are no restrictions – and those delivered at “command functions” that people of many faiths are encouraged or required to attend.

“Absent extraordinary circumstances,” any religious elements in a command ceremony “should be nonsectarian,” it said. Air Force guidelines issued a few weeks earlier made essentially the same distinction, calling for “non-denominational, inclusive prayer” or a moment of silence at military ceremonies.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902207.html

 

[dancny]

This is an old one and like many has some truth and a lot of fiction. I retired from the Navy two years ago and worked very closely with two Catholic Chaplins and we discussed this, so here goes.

Military chaplins lead many types of services under many circumstances. Often they are called to have an invocation at some event that has people from multiple faith backgrounds. The military is pretty PC in most areas and requires the chaplin to make an ecumeniacl prayer for the occasion. They don’t want Moslem Chaplins praising Allah or buddhist chaplins praising budda in front of the entire command. There is NO restriciton on what they do in their normal worship service. It is the public arena where the problem comes in.

About 5 years ago there was a Navy Chaplin who was some sort of Evangelical. he said it was his duty to praise Jesus at every opportunity and he wasn’t concerned about the “persecution of the governemnt” that was trying to silence him. His name was . Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt. He refused to do ecumenical prayers and the Jewish, Moselm and Atheist members of his command complained. he would also proselatize the crew, relentlessly. He got booted out nof the Navy for failure to obey a lawful order and a host of other charges. He sued the navy and said they were infringing of his rights. He lost.

Chaplins can pray to whatever god is the center of their faith IN THEIR WORSHIP SERVICE all they want. They are not supposed to proselatyze and they are to respect other faiths. he couldn’t do it.

I hope that helps.

 

[antonivs]

Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt

 

[Godfollower]

This is an old one and like many has some truth and a lot of fiction. I retired from the Navy two years ago and worked very closely with two Catholic Chaplins and we discussed this, so here goes.

Military chaplins lead many types of services under many circumstances. Often they are called to have an invocation at some event that has people from multiple faith backgrounds. The military is pretty PC in most areas and requires the chaplin to make an ecumeniacl prayer for the occasion. They don’t want Moslem Chaplins praising Allah or buddhist chaplins praising budda in front of the entire command. There is NO restriciton on what they do in their normal worship service. It is the public arena where the problem comes in.

About 5 years ago there was a Navy Chaplin who was some sort of Evangelical. he said it was his duty to praise Jesus at every opportunity and he wasn’t concerned about the “persecution of the governemnt” that was trying to silence him. His name was . Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt. He refused to do ecumenical prayers and the Jewish, Moselm and Atheist members of his command complained. he would also proselatize the crew, relentlessly. He got booted out nof the Navy for failure to obey a lawful order and a host of other charges. He sued the navy and said they were infringing of his rights. He lost.

Chaplins can pray to whatever god is the center of their faith IN THEIR WORSHIP SERVICE all they want. They are not supposed to proselatyze and they are to respect other faiths. he couldn’t do it.

I hope that helps.

Lt. Gordon J. Klingenschmitt?

 

[lobster]

If the government banned saying “Jesus” and someone were to be arrested for saying His name, could we say this represents persecution of the Church. Or in a worse case scenario, if given the death penalty, would the chaplain be considered a martyr?

 

[Dale_M]

If the government banned saying “Jesus” and someone were to be arrested for saying His name, could we say this represents persecution of the Church. Or in a worse case scenario, if given the death penalty, would the chaplain be considered a martyr?

I think you are letting your imagination run wild.

 

[Don9of11]

Thanks everyone for your feedback and the excellent resources. As I suspected it’s just a dumb chain email filled with false accusations. Thanks to your comments maybe I can encourage my brother and others in my family from sending this kind of drool around.

Don

 

[Drawmack]

If the government banned saying “Jesus” and someone were to be arrested for saying His name, could we say this represents persecution of the Church. Or in a worse case scenario, if given the death penalty, would the chaplain be considered a martyr?

From what I understand that didn’t ban saying Jesus. They banned praying to a specific faith’s God when conducting a public prayer where people from multiple faiths are present. If they have just banned saying Jesus there would be a civil rights case in challenging that, but since they banned all reference to any individual faith’s God or Gods it is not prejudice.

Being a realist, I’m actually a little glad they did this. Not getting to hear Jesus name in the prayer is a small price to pay for not having to listen to prayers to Allah, etc.

 

[lobster]

From what I understand that didn’t ban saying Jesus. They banned praying to a specific faith’s God when conducting a public prayer where people from multiple faiths are present. If they have just banned saying Jesus there would be a civil rights case in challenging that, but since they banned all reference to any individual faith’s God or Gods it is not prejudice.

I wonder if the apostles would have complied with a decree from the roman emperor banning praying specifically to God when conducting public prayer with a multi-faith people present.

 

[Drawmack]

I wonder if the apostles would have complied with a decree from the roman emperor banning praying specifically to God when conducting public prayer with a multi-faith people present.

I wonder if the situation the apostles were in is in any way comparable to this situation. This is a false dichotomy, because the apostles would have been forced to pray to pagan gods if conducting public prayer. So, we do not have a direct correlation between their actions and this state of affairs.

 

[WALTER_OROURKE]

I received an email from my brother which is a chain email much like a chain letter which I despise. Anyways, its from my brother so I opened it and read it. It states that the ACLU has filed suit to stop military chaplains from using Jesus’s name in public prayer and to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed. In this day and age I wouldn’t be surprised if this is true. Does anyone know for sure if this is factual or just a spoof to clog up our inbox’s?

This email has been circulating for at least six years and is totally FALSE.
It was put out in the Bush administration to stir up the support for the war after the 9-11 support began to run down and is now being re-released to stir up the people who do not check facts available on line.
Truth is available to all who wish to seek it.

 

[Black_Bart]

From what I understand that didn’t ban saying Jesus. They banned praying to a specific faith’s God when conducting a public prayer where people from multiple faiths are present. If they have just banned saying Jesus there would be a civil rights case in challenging that, but since they banned all reference to any individual faith’s God or Gods it is not prejudice.

Being a realist, I’m actually a little glad they did this. Not getting to hear Jesus name in the prayer is a small price to pay for not having to listen to prayers to Allah, etc.

Does not Jesus sit at the right hand of God? Is not Allah God? Please, allow God (Allah) to be praised in many different faiths!

 

[Kerry_Anne]

One word of caution about using Snopes as a fact-checking source: the Mikkelsons, the couple behind the Snopes website, have been reported as having far-left political ideologies. I wouldn’t give the mere reporting of this much credence if it weren’t for the fact that Snopes information often demonstrates an obvious liberal bias when reporting on issues of a religious or conservative nature. Just throwing this out there because they used to be my “go-to” source but I’ve learned to fact-check what they have to say with other sources before passing along an email or information to others as a legitimate fact. Obviously, this is my observation so take it as nothing more than that and come to your own conclusion.

 

[portarica]

One word of caution about using Snopes as a fact-checking source: the Mikkelsons, the couple behind the Snopes website, have been reported as having far-left political ideologies. I wouldn’t give the mere reporting of this much credence if it weren’t for the fact that Snopes information often demonstrates an obvious liberal bias when reporting on issues of a religious or conservative nature. Just throwing this out there because they used to be my “go-to” source but I’ve learned to fact-check what they have to say with other sources before passing along an email or information to others as a legitimate fact. Obviously, this is my observation so take it as nothing more than that and come to your own conclusion.

I agree, it seems as if the falsified articles they comment on are usually from the right.

What other site do you use that objectively has vetted the info coming from the right and the left ?

Thanks,

Peace