Retired Chaplains Warn Against DADT Repeal

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 3:31 PM GMT
    http://www.military.com/news/article/former-chaplains-warn-against-dadt-repeal.html

    So their argument is that openly gay service members infringe on the chaplains' religious freedom.

    Madison was right:
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.htmlBetter also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right pinciple, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 3:46 PM GMT
    Really. A lot of smoke, mirrors and pious posturing. There are atheists enlisted in the military. Are the Chaplains telling them they're going to hell? Somehow I doubt it. There are Jewish Chaplains in the Military, are the Christian ones telling them that they're wrong? Are the Christian Chaplains telling Jewish soldiers that they're going to hell?

    What a load of hogwash.

    Here's how the Chaplains operate in the Canadian military and performance of (yes) same-sex marriages.

    http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfcb-bsafc/pd/ssmbr-bmuepms-eng.asp


    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 3:47 PM GMT
    Here's a bit:

    "All chaplains are assured that, with specific reference to the matter of same-sex unions or marriages, they are to act as their understanding of faith and their conscience dictates, and in communion with their denominations.

    Every chaplain in the branch will receive all couples who come to them - regardless of sexual orientation - with respect and dignity. If there is a request for a same - sex blessing of partnership/marriage, and the chaplain receiving the request is not able to respond to the request as a matter of faith or conscience, then a clear referral is to be made to a colleague who will be able to respond in some way."

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 4:08 PM GMT
    I was in the US Army for 25 years, and we often didn't have a Chaplain available of the same faith as each of our soldiers. Military Chaplains are required to provide spiritual comfort to every soldier, regardless of their relative individual beliefs.

    It's a "one-size-fits-all" duty, that if they decline to perform then they are relieved of their position. It only makes sense, because the alternative is the denial of spiritual comfort to dying soldiers who may be Methodists, or Catholics, or Jews, when the Chaplain on the scene is some other denomination. If you don't wanna do that, then don't don the Chaplain's uniform -- simple.

    I expected Army Chaplains to administer to all my soldiers who wished it, not selectively, a kind of generic comfort. And they always did.

    Some religions accept gays. Are these retired Chaplains saying they would withhold their services from gays, because of sexual orientation? A Catholic Chaplain cannot refuse to pray over a dying Methodist, or over a Jew. But they can refuse to pray for gays?

    What kind of double-standard is that? The homophobia of this statement is revolting, and against the core values of the US Army Chaplain Corps.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 4:45 PM GMT
    they can go and fuck their choir boys/luggage carriers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 5:06 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidhttp://www.military.com/news/article/former-chaplains-warn-against-dadt-repeal.html

    So their argument is that openly gay service members infringe on the chaplains' religious freedom.

    Madison was right:
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.htmlBetter also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right pinciple, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one.

    Ok, what the fuck did Madison just say?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 5:39 PM GMT
    Somebody should start a freedom from religion church and preach the evils of religion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 7:49 PM GMT
    Caslon16000 said
    Ok, what the fuck did Madison just say?


    If I understand it correctly, Madison was against the establishment of chaplains for Congress and the armed forces.
    http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/GovernmentChaplains.htmThe fact that government sponsored chaplains existed from the beginning is not a sign that the Constitution's authors never intended to separate church and state...
    [then follows Madison's reasoning on why he was against them]
    None of this mattered when the Supreme Court decided the constitutionality of legislative chaplains in Marsh v. Chambers, 1983. According to Chief Justice Warren Burger's majority opinion, chaplains are constitutional simply because they have always been around — they are now a tradition. There was never any attempt to judge the practice of hiring congressional chaplains against tests, like the Lemon Test.
    ...
    Government should not interfere with religion or religious faith (i.e., by telling priests what they may and may not preach) and churches should not interfere with government (i.e., by creating a preference for certain religious views and restricting or discriminating against others).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 7:52 PM GMT

    I read the article that the OP referred to.

    Some of the denominations and religions cited would also consider extramarital sex a sin, and masturbation, and lying, and having hateful thoughts towards one's enemies, and killing one's enemy, all of which are not illegal in the military (are they?). And yet, military chaplains don't seem to have a problem "ministering" to those kinds of "offenders".

    This seems a bit odd.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 30, 2010 7:56 PM GMT
    singinnc said
    I read the article that the OP referred to.

    Some of the denominations and religions cited would also consider extramarital sex a sin, and masturbation, and lying, and having hateful thoughts towards one's enemies, and killing one's enemy, all of which are not illegal in the military (are they?). And yet, military chaplains don't seem to have a problem "ministering" to those kinds of "offenders".

    This seems a bit odd.


    Or how about people who kill others? Thou shalt not kill, right?.. Seems like a big oversight
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 7:57 PM GMT
    Once again, this show the danger of false belief systems.*














    *Okay, I'm borrowing that from someone else here on RJ, but it is true.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 8:02 PM GMT
    singinnc said
    I read the article that the OP referred to.

    Some of the denominations and religions cited would also consider extramarital sex a sin, and masturbation, and lying, and having hateful thoughts towards one's enemies, and killing one's enemy, all of which are not illegal in the military (are they?). And yet, military chaplains don't seem to have a problem "ministering" to those kinds of "offenders".

    This seems a bit odd.

    Please read what I wrote above. US military Chaplains are supposed to act non-denominationally, because the Chaplain at hand may not always be of the same denomination as the soldier in need of religious comfort.

    Not all denominations condemn gays. Chaplains are supposed to accommodate many different beliefs, not just their own personal one. Otherwise they cannot minister to whatever soldiers they encounter in combat.

    Therefore, this pronouncement by retired Chaplains is a violation of their basic mission. They might as well say they can't minister to Christians who don't uphold the Immaculate Conception, or to Jews at all. I find this highly offensive and contrary to their oath of office.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 8:26 PM GMT
    Brucex24_0.jpg




    Cartoon by editorial cartoonist: Bruce Mackinnon.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Oct 30, 2010 8:27 PM GMT
    Ever notice how organized religion fucks up everything ?
  • bmw0

    Posts: 588

    Oct 30, 2010 9:03 PM GMT
    I have to disagree with some of you. Religion does not fuck things up, nor does it promote evil. The people who misunderstand it do. People confuse the bible to be some form of way to live life currently. The stories are from back when living was simple... Now it is a sacred book, but one that should be read with an open mind of the way things happened in the past. People need to learn from it and try not to make the same mistakes. These people who read it and think that they are above someone else because they have a book in their hand are the ones causing the problems. The point in religion was to help people, not hurt them. I just find it hard to blame an institution and not the people who commit the acts.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Oct 30, 2010 9:09 PM GMT
    bmw0 saidI have to disagree with some of you. Religion does not fuck things up, nor does it promote evil. The people who misunderstand it do. People confuse the bible to be some form of way to live life currently. The stories are from back when living was simple... Now it is a sacred book, but one that should be read with an open mind of the way things happened in the past. People need to learn from it and try not to make the same mistakes. These people who read it and think that they are above someone else because they have a book in their hand are the ones causing the problems. The point in religion was to help people, not hurt them. I just find it hard to blame an institution and not the people who commit the acts.




    Well said, and I couldn't agree more. I will post the Gandhi quote again here cuz it applies:

    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
    - Mahatma Gandhi


    Obviously, there will be some dissension within the ranks of the military regarding DADT -- especially among the older dinosaurs within. Regardless, I still feel confident that, one way or another, Obama will see that this is repealed on his watch
  • bmw0

    Posts: 588

    Oct 30, 2010 9:53 PM GMT
    Actually, Obama did not allow the repeal to stand by the federal judge. He thinks that congress should decide apparently. He appealed the repeal ordered by the federal judge, and asked for the stay. Its said he wanted it to go clear to the supreme court, but he could have done that without the stay. That would be why i protested at his visit to Columbus. I don't much care for Obama, never did. And im a pretty hardcore democrat. icon_smile.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 30, 2010 10:27 PM GMT
    I think the underlying reason Chaplains have a problem with gays in the military is because allowing gays to openly serve moves the Bible one more step closer to fallibility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 10:32 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidI think the underlying reason Chaplains have a problem with gays in the military is because allowing gays to openly serve moves the Bible one more step closer to fallibility.
    well said!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 10:43 PM GMT
    bmw0 saidNow it is a sacred book, but one that should be read with an open mind...


    I do read the Bible with an open mind. My open mind finds it to be mostly bullshit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 11:27 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidI think the underlying reason Chaplains have a problem with gays in the military is because allowing gays to openly serve moves the Bible one more step closer to fallibility.


    I don't think people who hold the Bible to be sacred are looking for the military's acceptance or rejection of a perceived Biblical morality as an affirmation of their beliefs. Who cares what the government or its militia think about religion! Sensible people will believe what they choose to, not necessarily what a government endorses or affirms.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 31, 2010 3:16 AM GMT
    bmw0 saidThe point in religion was to help people, not hurt them.


    Religious people who are anti-gay aren't doing it to 'hurt' gays so much as to save them, for their own good, i.e. help them. See how easy it is to just justify it like that? That's one of the problems with religion imo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2010 3:23 AM GMT
    Off-topic:
    I still think all Christians should learn Aramaic, biblical Greek and classical Hebrew and read it in the original, and learn the history of how their holy book came about (e.g. why apocrypha like the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Maccabees, and the Wisdom of Solomon were not included).

    Then they can see how infallible the word of "God" is.

    arsenokoitai my ass.
    http://fogarty.org/tim/gay_issues/word_arsenokoitai.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2010 3:42 AM GMT
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,17698/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2010 3:54 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    bmw0 saidI have to disagree with some of you. Religion does not fuck things up, nor does it promote evil. The people who misunderstand it do. People confuse the bible to be some form of way to live life currently. The stories are from back when living was simple... Now it is a sacred book, but one that should be read with an open mind of the way things happened in the past. People need to learn from it and try not to make the same mistakes. These people who read it and think that they are above someone else because they have a book in their hand are the ones causing the problems. The point in religion was to help people, not hurt them. I just find it hard to blame an institution and not the people who commit the acts.




    Well said, and I couldn't agree more. I will post the Gandhi quote again here cuz it applies:

    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
    - Mahatma Gandhi


    Obviously, there will be some dissension within the ranks of the military regarding DADT -- especially among the older dinosaurs within. Regardless, I still feel confident that, one way or another, Obama will see that this is repealed on his watch



    The two best post in here icon_smile.gif