The strange case of Gordon James Klingenschmitt

“Jesus is taboo for U.S. military chaplains,” reads the sensational headline on the Drudge Report. The headline links to an article from the conservative Washington Times, itself owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church. Rev. Moon, the politically conservative head of this denomination, is proclaimed by the “Moonies” to be God’s Messiah.

While I would not doubt the ability of the U.S. military, or any large bureaucracy, to issue nonsensical directives, I’m not sure that this is the case here. It seems to me that Chaplain Klingenschmitt, an ordained priest in the Evangelical Episcopal Church, is not quite up to the theological and pastoral flexibility necessary to minister in the ecumenical setting of the United States Navy.

Military regulations, as I understand them, allow chaplains free rein in leading chapel services for their own stream of religious tradition. The Rev. Klingenschmitt is a Protestant chaplain. However, when their work takes them beyond their own religious constituency, chaplains are encouraged to exercise ecumenical sensitivity. When praying before a religiously pluralistic group, chaplains are to use theocentric language, praying to “God” and avoiding references to Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Trinity, Allah, or other expressions of God specific to particular faith traditions. According to Navy spokeswoman Lt. Erin Bailey, “Navy chaplains are encouraged to be sensitive to the needs of all those present” at public events.

Klingenschmitt believes he is being persecuted “because I pray in Jesus’ name” and is beginning a hunger strike in front of the White House to protest his treatment. His side of the story is presented at this website.

It seems to me that Klingenschmitt and his supporters are a bit over the line.

Seventy-three members of Congress signed a letter stating that military policy disenfranchises “hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers in the military who look to their chaplains for comfort, inspiration and support.”

The Rev. Billy Baugham, executive director of the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, complains that while Protestant chaplains have been told not to pray in the name of Jesus, no “rabbi [has] been rebuked for making references to Hanukkah.”

Both statements are non sequiturs.

To the 73 members of Congress, I would ask this: How are Christians denied comfort when chaplains, in a mixed religious context, proclaim the grace of our one God and avoid the christological affirmations peculiar to Christian faith?

To the Rev. Baugham, I would offer this reminder: Referring to a holiday such as Hanukkah (or Christmas or Ramadan) is one thing; it makes no religious claims. On the other hand, proclaiming that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God strikes in the face of the religious sensibilities of Jews and Muslims. And depending on how that proclamation is made, it also may not resonate with progressive Christians.

when it's an undue burden to get a judge

Now let's get this straight. The Founders of our Nation structured a Constitution to ensure that We the People would not suffer the kinds of abuses of power that King George committed against his subjects. Our Founders structured a system of Government that accomplishes this by two significant means.

First, there is a division of powers in our Government. The Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary each have set powers, defined by the Constitution. Our Government is organized this way to create a system of checks and balances. If one branch overreaches its power, the other two can "check" it.

Second, we have a Bill of Rights guaranteeing citizens certain rights that the government cannot violate. In particular, the Fourth Amendment reads:

     The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
     papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
     shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
     probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
     describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
     to be seized.

This isn't just arcane legal theory. This is the basis of our freedom as a people. It is the fullest expression of the genius of American Democracy. The ultimate beneficiaries of our Constitutional form of Government are "We the People."

This is also the heart of conservative political philosophy. We minimize the power of government in order to maximize the personal freedom of individual Americans.


But now we hear that the President of the United States gets to decide when he can disregard the Fourth Amendment rights of We the People. Now we hear that in his Constitutional role of Commander in Chief, he is not bound by the Constitution or by the law of the land. If, in his judgment, he feels that our democratic system of law jeopardizes our security, he can decide that the law doesn't apply to him.

Funny, I never heard this in any of the civics courses I took in school. Where is President Bush going to find activist judges to support this reading of the Constitution?


But let's take the President's logic one step further. The Bill of Rights grants the Executive the ability to conduct a search (which includes conducting wiretaps and intercepting email) if he obtains a Search Warrant from a Judge. (This is a fine example of our checks and balances in action). In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 even gives the Executive the right to conduct the search first and get the permission of a secret court afterwards, within 72 hours (three days). But President Bush believes there are times when it's an undue burden to get a judge.

Let's apply that same logic to the hypothetical case of a fourteen year old girl who has an unwanted pregnancy, who fears the reaction of an abusive parent if he learns about her situation, and who wants an abortion. The Bush Administration would argue that it's an easy enough matter for the girl to go before a Judge and so bypass the need for parental notification. But what fourteen year old girl has lawyers on staff who can advise her and draw up the necessary papers? What fourteen year old girl knows how to negotiate the legal system? What fourteen year old girl has the legal sophistication to even know where to begin? And we don't even give the fourteen year old the option of getting her abortion first and then appearing before a judge within seventy-two hours.

If it's not an undue burden to ask a fourteen year old girl to get on the docket of a busy Court in order to exercise her Constitutional right to privacy, then why is it an undue burden for the President? He's got dozens of lawyers working for him full-time. He's got an entire Justice Department with immediate access to the courts. He's even got a secret court set up just for this purpose, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Surely if the President expects that the typical fourteen year old girl with no legal experience can get her case before a judge in a timely manner, the President of the United States can accept the same obligation for himself. He is a citizen, subject to the Law, just as any of us are.


And this is the point. We live in a nation of laws. We are governed by the Constitution and by the properly enacted Law of the land. We are not subject to the arbitrary whims of whomever happens to be the present leader. We are a Democracy. We do business differently than did, say, King George of England or ... Saddam Hussein.

May Tookie rest in peace ...

... and may Arnold have trouble sleeping at night.

Capital punishment is an awful thing. It is an awful thing, knowingly, to take another's life, even if one could know with certainty that the condemned one was guilty of the grievous crimes that were committed. Killing in the name of the State serves no positive purpose. It does not protect society at large. It does not function as a meaningful deterrant. Countries without capital punishment have lower rates of violent crime than does the United States.

Capital punishment is applied haphazardly and inequitably. A person of color who murders a white person is statistically more likely to face execution than a white person who murders a person of color. A poor individual who cannot afford good legal representation is more likely to face execution than a wealthy individual who can afford the best lawyers money can hire.

Capital punishment is the ultimate consequence that can be meted out by a criminal justice system that is, shall we say, human and subject to the fallibility of human judgment and emotion. Judges, witnesses, criminologists, attorneys, and juries are all fallible, flesh-and-blood human beings. Our courts are susceptible to error. Our law grants the Chief Executive (the President, the Governor) the power to check the final judgment of the courts, partially in recognition of this fact.

California law also gives the Governor the power to grant clemency as an act of mercy. Implicit in the law is the belief that there are appropriate occasions for mercy to be granted. If Tookie Williams is not deserving of such mercy, then to what purpose was the Governor given this power?

All of these are familiar arguments. Let me put forward what may be a new thought:

Arnold wrestled with this decision for four days, for 96 long hours. News reports indicated it was an agonizing decision for Arnold to make. Let me put forward this proposition: If Tookie's clemency decision was agonizing to make, then Arnold's decision was really a no-brainer. If there is ever a plausible case to be made for sparing someone's life, then we need to choose life. Every time. This should be a familiar argument to the Christian Right.

Arnold played a movie character (the Terminator) who wasted dozens or even hundreds of other characters in his films. These were just make-belief deaths. Death and violence were depicted onscreen, but none of the actors actually died.

Arnold is now serving in a position in which his life-and-death decisions really do matter. Forever.

It was the will of countless Californians that clemency be offered to Tookie Williams. But only Arnold has the power to grant clemency, and the will of millions of Californians is powerless to affect the outcome of this case.

It was the feeling of countless Californians that reasonable doubt still existed in the case. We have no iron-clad guarantee that the California courts convicted the right man of four horrible murders. Substantial questions still exist, and just because the courts don't want to reexamine those issues, this does not guarantee that those haunting questions are not without merit.

Which brings me back to where I began this blog: May Tookie rest in peace ... and may Arnold have trouble sleeping at night.

In fact, may all of us have trouble sleeping at night, as we realize the fallibility of human judgment, as we contemplate a society that finds itself unable to grant mercy.