Retired military chaplains are claiming that it will be impossible to serve both the armed forces and God if they can’t preach that homosexuality is a sin. It is the retired chaplains that are speaking out because, they claim, their active duty brethren would be open to charges of insubordination if they went public.
Worshiping another God is also a sin, but the Constitution protects those who worship another God. Are Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists to be made second class members of our armed forces because they don’t share the same faith as the chaplain?
These chaplains took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Part of that Constitution is the right to worship other Gods. Chaplains are honor bound to support a member’s right, to sin. They knew that going in. Why are they suddenly so upset about a different sin?
This is a secular nation. A secular nation needs a secular armed forces. We must guard against turning our armed forces into an Army of God. If these sky-pilots can’t abide by their oath, bye-bye.
H/T New York Times
-David Drumm (Nal)
Blouise:
I’ve talked a little to Byron, he seems sensible. Maybe I should read his posts more often. Perhaps some here would consider it an insult to him to suggest we might think alike. LOL
But thank you.
Elaine,
gosh..sorry for this delayed response.
A soldier needs a chaplain for two reasons: to understand what it means if he kills and to understand, especially what it means if he is killed.
If he believes there is a god and he wants to please him (or her) or whatever the case is, who else to consult but a person educated in the precepts of that god?
The purpose isn’t for “judging” others, but judging self. In my opinion. Of course you are free to make up anything you want to believe about what their purpose is.
It is interesting that at first James Madison was opposed to having chaplains in the military. But he changed his mind and even helped appoint them.
The reason they are important is that we send soldiers off to die. It’s the least we can do for them.
Maybe if we stuck a gun in the hands of our presidents and congressmen and kicked their sorry butts overseas to fight the wars they love to wage, they might understand this matter a whole lot better.
Killing is not an immoral act. Murder is.
This is an irreconcilable conflict for these people. Let them resign and get honorable discharges with all their bennies preserved.
Toots,
Talked to Byron lately? … make time for him … lots of pearls there … you two think so much alike one could almost believe you were twins ….
Tootie,
I have always thought chaplains in the military were there to provide comfort to troops–not to judge them. Soldiers sometimes kill other human beings. Is the killing of other human beings an immoral act? You say my comment “begs the question.” How do you think chaplains should respond to soldiers who ask if they’re committing immoral acts when they kill other human beings?
Elaine
“You wrote: Is that the role of chaplains in the military…to preach to the troops? I thought their role was to minister to the needs of the troops. Isn’t there a difference?”
That begs the question. What if the “troop” comes to the chaplain and inquires about homosexual feelings? You know, wanting to know if he or she is committing an immoral act before they go on a suicide mission or some such thing?
Tootie,
Wanna bet? Your ignorance, homophobia and theocratic nonsense is in full bloom again. You clearly know squat about the USCMJ in addition to the Constitution. When you sign up? You sign away all kinds of rights civilians have – like free speech. What a civilian can say under the Constitution could get a service member a court martial for insubordination or worse.
As to the separation of church and state?
There should be no chaplains of any denomination in the military because the military is a government service and as such should avoid excessive entanglement under Lemon v. Kurtzman. The bottom line is this:
The United States was formed as a secular nation and our military must be secular as well. They serve us ALL, not just your little crew of demented “Jesus Loves Everyone But Homos” brigade.
Congress (via the military) may NOT infringe in this way. It is unconstitutional.
In order for the congress to not infringe on religion and religious speech they have to protect Chaplains. If they want to get rid of the chaplain office, they still have to protect Christians from this infraction against the Constitution by the military (because Congress is the ultimate power over the military). And, as I already said, congress may not infringe.
The power to raise armies is only a congressional power, but congress also has another obligation to maintain at the same time: to stay strictly within the boundaries of its powers without violating other aspects of the Constitution.
What the military can never do (because congress raises armies and is forbidden to infringe) is punish a Christian (or a Jew or Muslim) for saying homosexuality is a sin.
Since it is both Congress’s Constitutional obligation to declare war AND to not establish nor forbid, it CANNOT stop the chaplains speech (by punishment) unless it leads to a crime. This forbids speech, which congress is NEVER aloud to do. And it is a doubly whammy in which it would forbid religious speech. It can never infringe thusly. Indeed congress has the obligation to protect a chaplains speech or its risks infringing.
To forbid chaplains from their religious speech violates the wall of separation for religion and speech Jefferson was specifically referring to. Only states may infringe on either (as they already do in so many cases). To punish any religious persons for their religious speech in the US military is to violate separation as Jefferson alluded to in his letter to the Baptist church.
Lets keep the door to the Constitution open in the military.
“Thou shalt not kill.” How is loving my brother worse than kill him?
Fred and Mike
Actually there has been a steady movement for years by American Christianists to dominate the military.
———————————————-
This is one of my biggest fears, also. This is one of the downsides of a voluntary military. When a draft is in force, the general population, along with their values, are better represented.