Archive for the 'Religion' Category

Here is a good article from MSNBC (I don’t usually like the stuff they produce) on warrior ethics.  It was worth the time spent reading it.  I would also mention a post I made some time ago on Calvin and Aquinas on war (most of the post was quoting Calvin, with a pointer to a paper in “First Things” on the subject of good wars).  This is an even better read, very scholarly and studied.  It may sound jingoistic to some people (who haven’t a foundation, or “world view” from which to launch the balance of their thinking), but there are good reasons for waging war and defending yourself and others.  The fathers of the church even call this a “ministry” to others.

Hmmm.  What would the folks over at Daily Kos think of war as a “ministry?”

I previously wrote about a Navy Chaplain who is facing court martial for praying in Christ’s name.  It included some very interesting things: a little history on the Chaplain, links to his web site, my letter to the Navy Times and their desire to publish it until they found out I was a Milblogger, etc..  I said that I would follow this story.  Here is my second installment.

As it turns out, the Chaplain is facing court martial not only for praying in Christ’s name in uniform, but also for preaching from Romans Chapter 8 at a memorial for a departed Christian sailor.  It is important to remember that this is part of a continuing effort to suppress the religious freedom of our Chaplains.  The initial volley was in the Air Force.  The history of this can be found here (along with a critique and response).  A temporary truce resulted from the stinging critique of the policy, but the volley continued in the Navy where Chaplain Klingenschmitt is the “example” being used by the Navy (you must read the critique — it is simply a demolition job; nothing remains of the policy after the critique is finished.  Loud Applause, high fives all around, and the scoreboard reads “Christians – 1, Lions – 0”).

It is also important to remember that the issue is not: where Klingenschmitt was when he prayed? whether he was in uniform? whether this was a sanctioned event? whether he was with Judge Roy Moore when he prayed? whether he had specific permission to pray in Christ’s name? whether he used this instance as a seed for further action or some other kind of protest against the Navy policy? or any other sideline issue.  We need to stay on-point in our analysis of this issue.  The military does not like people protesting orders or policies, and for good reason.  But however tempting it is to focus on the background noise, again, we must stay on-point in our analysis.  I can analyze the background noise for you later.

The are some important things to remember in our analysis of this question, including:

1. Is the Navy policy constitutional?
2. Is it even possible to pray a prayer that offends no one?

On the second question, since the nature of Christianity is exclusive (“I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me,” Jesus Christ, circa 33 A.D.), to fail to honor Christ in an attempt to keep from offending the adherents of some other faith by its very nature offends Christ, and therefore, the Christian (notice that I did not use the term CE when referring to dating; I used AD.  Does that offend anyone?).  It is rather like that old liberal college professor adage that goes “there is no such thing as truth,” to which the perceptive student might respond, “But professor, is your statement true?  If so, then the proposition “there is no truth” is manifestly false.  If your statement is false, then why should we listen to you?”

The laws of logic must be followed, and if the Christian is required to pray a prayer that does not offend the Muslim or the Jew, then by definition, he offends his own religion.  Another way of saying it is this.  ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.  Again, remember the laws of logic (in this case, the law of contradiction).

The Navy policy-makers are not thinking men; they attempt to require a Christian Chaplain to pray a prayer that offends no one, and thus they forget the fundamental laws of logic.  What they order is impossible.  It would violate the laws of logic.

As to the second question, the reader needs to refer to other more impressive works than anything that I can put into prose.  I recommend for starters:

1. Daniel L. Dreisbach, “Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment.”
2. Rousas J. Rushdoony, “The Nature of the American System.”

Suffice it to say based on Rushdoony’s work that most of the thirteen original colonies had an established religion or faith, and the ones that did not were Christian in their system of laws and regulations.  The first amendment did not promise freedom from religion, but the freedom of it.  The same colonies that had established religions also approved the first amendment, demonstrating conclusively that whatever it means, it does not mean that a Chaplain cannot pray in Christ’s name.

The most ironic and humerous aspect of the most recent legal ruling is the radical departure from the constitution that Rear Admiral Ruehe lapses into when he claims that the Chaplain could have “commanded the assent of the vast majority of his audience” by preaching something less exclusive.  Permit me a chuckle or two here.  Since when has the military worried about commanding the assent of a vast majority of its audience?  Good Lord!  How effeminate we have become as a nation.  It is literally embarrassing.  I guess I have to be embarrassed for all of us — apparently, the Rear Admiral is too stolid to be ashamed.

Does the Admiral not understand that the so-called “vast majority” of America is still Christian, and that commanding their assent requires the exclusive Christian message?  Does the Rear Admiral read and study?

I have just spoken on the telephone with Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt.  It was a pleasant conversation, and the Lt. seems to me to be a sensible, amicable and educated man — certainly not a maverick .  He is facing court martial because he prayed in Christ’s name while in uniform at Lafayette Park.  There are many issues we are going to cover in the coming weeks on this story.  I will not let it die, no matter how small my blog is.  I will keep writing on this.  The facts will be laid out in detail in the coming days here at the Captain’s Journal; I recommend that you go to Klingenschmitt’s web site for further information.  But right now it seems appropriate to me to begin this coverage with a statement by one of my heros, Justice Antonin Scalia, from “Scalia Dissents,” Kevin A. Ring, Ed.:

“Church and State would not be such a difficult subject if religion were, as the Court apparently thinks it to be, some purely personal avocation that can be indulged entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one’s room.  For most believers, it is not that, and has never been.  Religious men and women of almost all denominations have felt it necessary to acknowledge and beseech the blessing of God as a people, and not just as individuals, because they believe in the “protection of divine providence,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it, not just for individuals but for societies; because they believe God to be, as Washington’s first Thanksgiving Proclamation put it, the “Great Lord and Ruler of Nations.”  One can believe in the effectiveness of such public worship, or one can deprecate and deride it.  But the longstanding American tradition of prayer at official ceremonies displays with unmistakable clarity that the Establishment Clause does not forbid government to accommodate it.”

I should also mention that I had sent a letter to the Marine Corps Times editor, who in turn sent the letter to the Navy Times editorial staff.  I received a request via e-mail from Deputy News Editor of the Navy Times, Mr. Philip Creed (pcreed@atpco.com, or 703.750.8747) to use my letter in an upcoming issue of the Navy Times.  I responded in the affirmative, and added that I was a Milblogger.  I later sent another note to Mr. Creed asking if the letter had been used, and he responded back that it had not (without explanation).  But earlier this letter was picked up by The North Carolina Conservative which published it on June 21, 2006.  This version of the letter included another web site that links to a strong response to the same thing attempted in the Air Force.

We will cover this document, Lt. Klingenschmitt’s court martial, and the details of the case in the coming weeks.  You will get to see the Constitution under attack from the very people who are sworn to defend it.  I will also cite the Oath of Enlistment that every Soldier, Marine, Sailor and Airman takes.  My son took it prior to Boot Camp at Parris Island.  I go into his room to read it often.  In the coming weeks, you will have the opportunity to compare this oath with the actions of the senior leadership within our military.  You can judge for yourself how they stack up.

I have just spoken on the telephone with Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt.  It was a pleasant conversation, and the Lt. seems to me to be a sensible, amicable and educated man — certainly not a maverick .  He is facing court martial because he prayed in Christ’s name while in uniform at Lafayette Park.  There are many issues we are going to cover in the coming weeks on this story.  I will not let it die, no matter how small my blog is.  I will keep writing on this.  The facts will be laid out in detail in the coming days here at the Captain’s Journal; I recommend that you go to Klingenschmitt’s web site for further information.  But right now it seems appropriate to me to begin this coverage with a statement by one of my heros, Justice Antonin Scalia, from “Scalia Dissents,” Kevin A. Ring, Ed.:

“Church and State would not be such a difficult subject if religion were, as the Court apparently thinks it to be, some purely personal avocation that can be indulged entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one’s room.  For most believers, it is not that, and has never been.  Religious men and women of almost all denominations have felt it necessary to acknowledge and beseech the blessing of God as a people, and not just as individuals, because they believe in the “protection of divine providence,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it, not just for individuals but for societies; because they believe God to be, as Washington’s first Thanksgiving Proclamation put it, the “Great Lord and Ruler of Nations.”  One can believe in the effectiveness of such public worship, or one can deprecate and deride it.  But the longstanding American tradition of prayer at official ceremonies displays with unmistakable clarity that the Establishment Clause does not forbid government to accommodate it.”

I should also mention that I had sent a letter to the Marine Corps Times editor, who in turn sent the letter to the Navy Times editorial staff.  I received a request via e-mail from Deputy News Editor of the Navy Times, Mr. Philip Creed (pcreed@atpco.com, or 703.750.8747) to use my letter in an upcoming issue of the Navy Times.  I responded in the affirmative, and added that I was a Milblogger.  I later sent another note to Mr. Creed asking if the letter had been used, and he responded back that it had not (without explanation).  But earlier this letter was picked up by The North Carolina Conservative which published it on June 21, 2006.  This version of the letter included another web site that links to a strong response to the same thing attempted in the Air Force.

We will cover this document, Lt. Klingenschmitt’s court martial, and the details of the case in the coming weeks.  You will get to see the Constitution under attack from the very people who are sworn to defend it.  I will also cite the Oath of Enlistment that every Soldier, Marine, Sailor and Airman takes.  My son took it prior to Boot Camp at Parris Island.  I go into his room to read it often.  In the coming weeks, you will have the opportunity to compare this oath with the actions of the senior leadership within our military.  You can judge for yourself how they stack up.

Over at the incomparable Michelle Malkin’s home page she hat tips “Alarming News” for catching the Baltimore Sun for scolding for “inappropriate glee” at the death of Al-Zarqawi.  Well, sign me up for some … and for some more too.  My son will not deploy for another half year or so, but I had already prayed for the death of Zarqawi, hoping that Iraq would be a safer place for him and his brothers when he gets there.  In case you have forgotten what an imprecatory prayer is, go catch Doug Giles on this subject.  We should be praying more of them.  In fact, here is a short one right now.

Lord, please allow us to succeed in killing the enemy.  Root him out from his hiding places, cause him to starve, to experience misery, to fail in all of his evil intentions, and to become a laughingstock to the world.  Lord, give us success in smiting our enemies with a great blow so that this evil will be removed from us.

Glee?  I am overjoyed at the death of the terrorists.  Whew!  Perhaps I will pray more of these imprecatory prayers!

Over at the incomparable Michelle Malkin’s home page she hat tips “Alarming News” for catching the Baltimore Sun for scolding for “inappropriate glee” at the death of Al-Zarqawi.  Well, sign me up for some … and for some more too.  My son will not deploy for another half year or so, but I had already prayed for the death of Zarqawi, hoping that Iraq would be a safer place for him and his brothers when he gets there.  In case you have forgotten what an imprecatory prayer is, go catch Doug Giles on this subject.  We should be praying more of them.  In fact, here is a short one right now.

Lord, please allow us to succeed in killing the enemy.  Root him out from his hiding places, cause him to starve, to experience misery, to fail in all of his evil intentions, and to become a laughingstock to the world.  Lord, give us success in smiting our enemies with a great blow so that this evil will be removed from us.

Glee?  I am overjoyed at the death of the terrorists.  Whew!  Perhaps I will pray more of these imprecatory prayers!

The killer is finally dead.  Here is a huge difference between Christianity and Islam.  Upon hearing of their leader’s death, Al-Qaida in Iraq said the following:

“The death of our leaders is life for us.  It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme.”

There you have it.  Radical Islam in all its glory.  The spread of their “gospel” by killing others.  No salvation … no forgiveness … no compassion … no teaching … no work by the Holy Spirit (because they do not know Him).  Just war and killing and more killing.

Update: The pretty pictures they are showing over at the major news outlets does not show the true story.  He met a violent end.  This should be the way of all such killers and terrorists.

Update #2: Hat tip to Right Wing News for the prediction on the Strategy Page that he would meet his demise soon.  Yesterday they predicted that Zarqawi would go out in a blaze of glory, become another martyr, and be out of the way of the organization because he had become a hinderance.  Just one problem.  If he has been a hinderance, then he has been so all along.  The beheadings, the violence to fellow Muslims, the sectarian fighting, the allegations and accusations against other branches of Al-Qaida, leading to the rebukes by Usama … these have been there all along.  Why now?  If he is a hinderance, then he hasn’t just recently become so.  I just don’t buy it – not yet.  I think that this is a win for the U.S. and a loss for Al-Qaida.  The organization becomes weaker as a result of this.  Unless I see evidence that the “real” leadership planned such a move, I will continue to believe that he was the head of the organization.  Besides, I just don’t think that they are organized enough to pull something like this off.

Update #3: Juan Cole notes the following:

… groups in Fallujah have launched attacks on Zarqawi followers there after the latter attacked the al-Husain Mosque in the Askari quarter two days ago, destroying the tomb of the founder of the mosque within it. (Salafis influenced by Saudi Wahhabism despise attendance at saints tombs, insisting on a Protestant-like elimination of all intermediaries between human beings and God. Many Islamists in Fallujah are actually Sufis, who value saints in the way rural Catholics do.) An attempt by the radical Salafis to destroy the mosque (on the grounds that it had been tainted with polytheism) was stopped by the “1920 Revolution Brigades,” a local ex-Baathist group. There was a running gun battle between the two.

Zarqawi’s group had also tried two days ago to attack a Fallujah police station, but they were repulsed by local tribal youth. The battle left two cars burned and 4 dead from the tribe of Al-Bu `Isa.

This makes better sense to me than the notion that his own people took him out by giving Centcom intelligence.  Zarqawi was the head of Al-Qaida in Iraq.  He was not the head of what the U.S. troops there call the “moog.”  On the other hand, there is indication that the Jordanians were also involved in this.  It will piece together over time.

Update #4: The video of the bomb that killed the killer is here.

Atheist Richard Cohen in his most recent commentary waxes on about things of which he has no understanding (hat tip to Right Wing News).  Our friend at Right Wing News (John Hawkins) takes Mr. Cohen to task, but using a view different from the Calvinian understanding of God’s sovereignty that came from the reformation (or in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God ordains “whatsoever comes to pass”).  Mr. Cohen’s theodicy has been posed and solved a hundred thousand times.  Cohen’s problem is psychological, not logical.  While we cannot reprint huge portions of Hodge, Dabney, and other systematic theologians to responsd to Cohen, we can point our readers to several good, contemporary papers on this issue.  Paul Helm has a great paper entitled “Openness Theology: A Response to Gregory Boyd,” which can be found here.  See Gordon H. Clark on the Sovereignty of God here.  Also see Clark on Determinism and Responsibility here (although there is a typo in the title line).