Some religious conservatives are claiming that military chaplains aren’t allowed to pray in Jesus’ name. But, no surprise, that’s way overstated.
The policy announced last month asks that chaplains give nonsectarian prayers in “command functions” in which soldiers of many faiths are encouraged or required to attend. It doesn’t apply to religious services or other functions. Sounds reasonable. But some conservatives in Congress are asking for — and religious broadcasters are demanding — a presidential order guaranteeing the right of chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus.
Such an order is not needed and is based on “confusion and misinformation,” the Rev. Herman Keizer Jr., chairman of the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, which represents more than 70 percent of military chaplains, told The Washington Post. “This has been portrayed as though chaplains are not allowed to pray in Jesus’ name, without any distinction between what they do all the time in worship services and what they do occasionally, in ceremonial settings where attendance is mandatory,” Keizer said.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
23 Comments
I think this would fall under separation of church and state.
Just as no teacher in a public school should ever be allowed to educate as to matters of faith, it would also be wise to separate particular faith from military service ceremony. To do otherwise is to invite “chain of command” religion.
Yet another knee jerk reaction from the bed wetting crowd. Fear! Fear! To the battle stations christian soldiers!!!!
Too bad we cant ever replace the cries of Fear! Fear! with…
Facts! Facts!
But then, facts just dont energize the evangelical base like fear, now do they?
Sounds to me like once again, it is all about the SHOW of prayer and not the GO of prayer.
No one regulates how you pray… or not…. inside your heart. No one but the god to whom you are praying.
I guess that just isnt good enough for some people.
Like their brothers in Afghanistan the Taliban wants their religion established as the ONLY one allowed. When they are not allowed to do so they cry “attack on Christians”
I think the chaplain in MASH showed the proper role well – he would serve the needs of his varied flock, be they Catholic, Protest, Jewish, or whatever. I recall one episode in which he officiated at a Bris with a Rabbi on the radio.
Don’t ask, Don’t tell your religion.
Nowhere has that been suggested Joe.
The poor victim role is automatic and easy and requires absolutly no thinking. Man oh man, I get so tired of these self-righteous freaks.
I wonder how these guys would react to a Muslim chaplain officiating over a required ceremony and praying “in the name of the Prophet Mohammed”
There you go, making sense again.
As a Christian, I understand the objection to civic religion (invoking a generic god, when people of faith believe in a specific God). However, there are times it is the most appropriate – group memorial services, secular graduations, and other times of difficulty for a group of people not joined by a common faith. Most of my religious, agnostic, and atheist friends do not object to such prayers, and I think that unity is, at the time, more important than invoking a particular god by name. I agree with Ben Huie that while a certain faction may decry the “empty village square” or the supposed trampling of the rights of Christians; they are decidedly not supportive of a Menorah display across from the nativity or a prayer to Allah at a military function. That is when a valid theological point (religions worship a god, goddess, or gods, not the concept of god) becomes the tyranny of the majority.
As a Christian, I understand the objection to civic religion (invoking a generic god, when people of faith believe in a specific God). However, there are times it is the most appropriate – group memorial services, secular graduations, and other times of difficulty for a group of people not joined by a common faith. Most of my religious, agnostic, and atheist friends do not object to such prayers, and I think that unity is, at the time, more important than invoking a particular god by name. I agree with Ben Huie that while a certain faction may decry the “empty village square” or the supposed trampling of the rights of Christians; they are decidedly not supportive of a Menorah display across from the nativity or a prayer to Allah at a military function. That is when a valid theological point (religions worship a god, goddess, or gods, not the concept of god) becomes the tyranny of the majority.
Opps. Sorry.
I have worked with chaplains in my military experience.
I have even looked into becoming a military chaplain.
It really is a very politically correct profession sometimes.
I don’t think Christians are in the wrong for being worried about this proposal.
If you invite a muslim to give a prayer you should be prepared for a muslim to say something along the lines of his belief.
If you invite a Christian to give a prayer you should be prepared for that type of prayer.
However, the military is and has politicized the chaplain profession by ensuring that it is a very politically correct one these days.
There is more to it than having them not invoke Christs name.
To a Christian like me my whole faith is based on Christ and his greatness. I base 99% of my prayers in his name.
To ask that Christian chaplains not use His name in prayer is almost like asking us to ignore the very God we are praying to.
I have been asked to give the prayer at the Marine Corps ball for the past 2 years. Unfortunately I also volunteer for the Ball ceremony detail every year too. I can’t do both.
I can guaruntee you that I will be praying in Jesus name at the ceremony if in fact I ever do. If they ask me not to, then I would probably have to seriously consider my praying at all.
Nathan,Many Christians are asked, and politely refuse, to pray prayers they are theologically unable to pray. A hospital chaplain friend is regularly asked to pray in certain ways for healing that he cannot do. That is normal. I hope every Christian would refuse to pray a prayer they cannot theologically support. Why is that an unacceptable answer?
Some Christians can support praying more generic prayers (and SCOTUS’s believing that God can be construed generically is the only thing that keeps “in God we trust” and “under God” on our money and in our pledge. “In Jesus’ name” on our money would have been blotted out long ago.) The question is – should a chaplain obtain a legal right to pray in a specific Christian way, in situations where non-Christians are forced to be present? Does his one “right” supercede the separation of church and state (since it does sound like endorsing one religion)? Alternatively, should prayers in each faith tradition of those represented be offered or no prayers? Finally, I don’t think only Christians are asked or support inclusive prayers – I have heard inclusive and beautiful prayers from Rabbis and Muslim clerics.
I agree Allie. The very existence of State-paid chaplains skirts on the edge of Establishment. In my opinion as long as they compartmentalize their duties carefully they stay on the ‘right’ side of the Establishment line. They can minister to their flock “in Jesus name” at services with no problems. BUT, when they oversee non-Christians (non-Muslims etc) they need to be inclusive. Otherwise, in my opinion, they cross the line.
This group mentioned above has been very aggressive in trying to force their particular brand of Protestantism on others. In so doing they attempt to “Establish” that brand of Protestantism.
“tyranny of the majority”
Gosh, where have I heard THAT phrase before?
“tyranny of the majority”
Gee, last I looked we lived in a democracy and not a polity. At least that’s what they’ve been calling this country for the past 200+ years. Doesn’t a majority rule in a democracy? Nah! I must be way off! After all, modern day Americans are so intent on giving their country away to big business and illegal aliens I would say this country’s correct political system should be defined as: “the country which the rest of the world can wipe their ass with cuz the people are led by braindead limpwristed liberal pantywaists.” Yeah, that is a more fitting description of modern-day America.
We live in a republic, unless you think we all head down to the agora and take our chances being chosen as a judge for the year by lottery, or got to actively vote whether to go to war or not (I only wish) in our city-state’s congress. Here, we do have rules of law that are not simply the will of the majority. Since this is a thread about forcing individuals to hear a certain religious message, are you suggesting our democracy may be a theocracy as long as 51% of us are nominally Christian? I believe that less than 50% of Americans attend church services weekly.
“the country which the rest of the world can wipe their ass with cuz the people are led by braindead limpwristed liberal pantywaists.”
Gee, the last time I checked, the republicans controlled all three branches of government.
Are those tough talking, gun totin’, church goin’, budget bustin’ republicans the “limpwristed liberal pantywaists” you speak of?
No political party controls the judiciary. If you are talking about the composition of the supreme court, you would do well to know that liberal justices outnumber conservative ones 5-4, so if that was what you were referring to then yeah, liberals still are in control of the supreme court.
And who appoints federal judges?
Cowboy in Chief does. But SO WHAT? Liberal judges are still the majority on the SC, and when the democrats get hillary in expect to see MORE LIBERAL FED JUDGES.
Wow, one wonders where common sense has gone. If the government is going to employ individuals of faith to perform services consistent with that faith, then expect that Christians will pray in Jesus’ name. How that can be construed to be a threat to the American system boggles the mind, especially when brought up by one who confesses that name. Hmm.