“Does the military not have the right to choose who will serve?”

[Cal_Catholic]

Archbishop for Military Services speaks out on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

Full article…

 

[sedonaman]

First of all, I wish people would stop saying that government entities have rights; they don’t; only people have rights. Government has authority. So the question should be, does the government [in this case the military] have the authority to decide who can serve in the military? Yes, it does, and for good reasons. Whenever the military’s needs change, the qualifications are raised or lowered accordingly. Should the military have to get court approval every time its needs change?

In this particular case, I asked a retired judge how only one judge could tell the rest of the country what to do, and he said that she can’t and that her rulings apply only to her district. In short, she exceeded her authority. That being the case, the controlling authority for the military is Congress.

Why someone would want to force an organization to accept whom they obviously don’t want is beyond me, unless there is more to their desires than “to serve”.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Why someone would want to force an organization to accept whom they obviously don’t want is beyond me, unless there is more to their desires than “to serve”.

That’s just what a good number of generals and admirals said when President Truman integrated the Armed Forces. It was okay to let black men serve in segregated units, but they didn’t want blacks serving in the same units as whites. Bad for morale, bad for unit efficiency - so they said.

So much for “forcing an organization.” True enough, there was a lot of foot-dragging, but the Services finally accepted integration of the military.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I think the constitution still applies to the military. So the decisions as to who may serve still must pass constitutional muster…

 

[sedonaman]

That’s just what a good number of generals and admirals said when President Truman integrated the Armed Forces. It was okay to let black men serve in segregated units, but they didn’t want blacks serving in the same units as whites. Bad for morale, bad for unit efficiency - so they said.

So much for “forcing an organization.” True enough, there was a lot of foot-dragging, but the Services finally accepted integration of the military.

Racial integration of the armed forces did not require its members to abandon their religious freedoms.

…if the government normalizes homosexual behavior in the armed forces, many (if not most) chaplains will confront a profoundly difficult moral choice: whether they are to obey God or to obey men. This forced choice must be faced, since orthodox Christianity – which represents a significant percentage of religious belief in the armed forces – does not affirm homosexual behavior. Imposing this conflict by normalizing homosexual behavior within the armed forces seems to have two likely – and equally undesirable – results.

First, chaplains might be pressured by adverse discipline and collapsed careers into watering down their teachings and avoiding – if not abandoning – key elements of their sending denomination’s faith and practice. Such a result would be the very antithesis of religious freedom and inimical to the guarantees made by our First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, chaplains might have their ability to freely share their religious beliefs challenged and torn away in a variety of everyday situations. For instance, chaplains who methodically preach book-by-book from the Bible would inevitably present religious teachings that identify homosexual behavior as immoral. Thus, while chaplains fulfill their duty to God to preach the doctrines of their faith, they would find themselves speaking words that are in unequivocal conflict with official policies.

In fact, the proposed “non-discrimination” law may effectively ban chaplains from expressing their religious beliefs on homosexual behavior.The affects of this ban would be felt keenly within a chaplain’s religious duties, but it would extend outside the pulpit, too. Since chaplains are tasked with teaching classes in moral leadership and ethics both on armed forces bases and at branch schools, such censorship would prevent them from providing the full moral instruction their faith background gives them.
…

By raising homosexual behavior to the same protected status as innate, innocuous characteristics like race and gender, the armed forces will cast the sincerely held religious beliefs of many chaplains and Service members as rank bigotry comparable to racism. Further, all officers, including chaplains, are evaluated by their superiors in a report like the Army Officer Efficiency Report or the Navy Officer Fitness Report. A question on the report specifically asks if the officer supports the armed forces’ equal opportunity policy, of which the “non-discrimination” policy would be a part.
…

These concerns are not mere speculation. Civilians are already experiencing widespread conflict between religious liberty and “non-discrimination” policies protecting homosexual behavior. Christian counselors have been punished for declining to counsel same-sex couples, Christian prison chaplains have been disciplined for refusing to turn their worship service over to individuals who openly engage in homosexual behavior, Christian voluntary organizations have been discriminated against by governmental entities for requiring organizational leadership to share their religious beliefs on homosexual behavior, Christian businesses have been fined for declining to promote homosexual behavior, and Christian ministries have been penalized for choosing not to allow their facilities to be used for same-sex commitment ceremonies. These are just a few examples of the ongoing conflict, and nothing will insulate armed forces chaplains from these issues already rampant in civilian life.
…

So much for the homosexuality-is-a-civil-right argument.

 

[sedonaman]

I think the constitution still applies to the military. So the decisions as to who may serve still must pass constitutional muster…

I think the constitution also has some things to say about government exceeding its authority.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Racial integration of the armed forces did not require its members to abandon their religious freedoms.

Neither did having had homosexuals serving alongside me require me to abandon mine.

 

[estesbob]

I have not served in the military so accordingly defer to those who have This is one of the few cases where I agree with the Obama administration-this issue should be settled by the elected representatives of the people, not by the courts.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I have not served in accordingly defer to those who have This is one of the few cases where I agree with the Obama administration-this issue should be settled by the elected representatives of the people, not by the courts.

Lordy, Lordy! There are a few places where we do agree.

 

[estesbob]

Lordy, Lordy! There are a few places where we do agree.

I knew is cold this morning but did not realize it was cold enough for hell to freeze over

 

[Dale_M]

So much for the homosexuality-is-a-civil-right argument.

Eh, not necessarily so. The arguments put forward are rather weak.

When speaking in an ecumenical setting, military chaplains do need to avoid giving offense to those who do not share their denominational beliefs. This has been an ongoing problem in the military with some Evangelical chaplains insisting that they need to preach as they understand Christianity but it is the trade-off of serving in an ecumenical setting.

The second argument they present strikes me as bogus. There is no reason why, in the setting of their own denomination, they are (or would be) required to avoid preaching or teaching according to their denominational beliefs.

 

[sedonaman]

Neither did having had homosexuals serving alongside me require me to abandon mine.

They got you to accept homosexual relations as normal.

 

[NE_Catholic]

lotsa wrangling about really nothng
we all knew who was gay
they didn’t “flaunt” it
nothing is going to change

 

[sedonaman]

…When speaking in an ecumenical setting, military chaplains do need to avoid giving offense to those who do not share their denominational beliefs. …

And how, pray tell, are they suppose to know exactly what will offend whom? A person in such a setting has to expect that he might hear things he doesn’t agree with. And even in settings of one denomination, some will take offense at hearing their particular failings mentioned; it has been the nature of Christianity since John the Baptist denounced the king’s adultery.

So, it is impossible to structure a society in which nobody gets offended. Or are you thinking only those anointed with victim status should be protected?

 

[Dale_M]

And how, pray tell, are they suppose to know what will offend whom?

Its not hard to make references to God, or even to Christ, which are uncontroversial.

And even in settings of one denomination, some will take offense at hearing their particular sins mentioned; it has been the nature of Christianity since John the Baptist denounced the king’s adultery.

Perhaps so, but the person complaining would not have any basis for complaint. If someone doesn’t like their religion, they shouldn’t attend its services.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

They got you to accept homosexual relations as normal.

Not at all. They got me to accept anyone as a fellow Serviceman, with as much dedication to the mission as I had.

I didn’t ask or want to know what any man, hetero- or homosexual did on his own time in private.

 

[sedonaman]

Its not hard to make references to God, or even to Christ, which are uncontroversial.

Can you give an example?

Perhaps so, but the person complaining would not have any basis for complaint. If someone doesn’t like their religion, they shouldn’t attend its services.

That doesn’t explain how the priest/minister/et al is supposed to know what might offend the hyper sensitive.

The very nature of Christianity is controversy. If it were not, Christianity would be of this world.

“…But people do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or for that matter their way of life.”

Your line of reasoning is just a plea to be polite; we are suppose to be discussing whether or not homosexuals have a legal right to join the military; I say no one has that right because some people are unqualified; or, in the case of homosexuals, their presence would cause more problems that it would solve, QED by the chaplains’ letter. If letting them join would be as innocuous as proponents claim, it would follow that people are interchangeable [which they are not], and I would ask how the military would benefit.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

we are suppose to be discussing whether or not homosexuals have a legal right to join the military; I say no one has that right because some people are unqualified; or, in the case of homosexuals, their presence would cause more problems that it would solve.

It hasn’t caused such problems in the armies of our allies who admit open homsexuals into the ranks, and that is stong example indeed. Where homosexuals have served in our Armed Forces, no man has been discharged for incompetence, but because of violation of DADT. If a man wants to serve, is motivated towards the mission, and understands how military discipline could be affected by his failure to comply with it, I will welcome any gay or lesbian into our Armed Forces.

 

[sedonaman]

Not at all. They got me to accept anyone as a fellow Serviceman, with as much dedication to the mission as I had.

I didn’t ask or want to know what any man, hetero- or homosexual did on his own time in private.

Sounds like they got you to accept homosexual relations as normal.

 

[Dale_M]

Can you give an example?

Seriously? I don’t have examples of prayers or sermons handy, but ecumenical prayers and worship services are common. I will do a Google search if you really want to hold to this question, but honestly I am surprised that you wouldn’t be aware of it.

That doesn’t explain how the priest/minister/et al is supposed to know what might offend the hyper sensitive.

The very nature of Christianity is controversy. If it were not, Christianity would be of this world.

Sedonaman, when speaking to members of his or her faith, a priest or minister wouldn’t need to worry about such things. He or she would and should be expected to hold to the lines of their faith. For the government to say otherwise would be a violation of Church and State.

The problem would only arise when interacting with military personnel of different religious affiliations.

Your line of reasoning is just a plea to be polite; we are suppose to be discussing whether or not homosexuals have a legal right to join the military; I say no one has that right because some people are unqualified…

Very true.

…or, in the case of homosexuals, their presence would cause more problems that it would solve, QED by the chaplains’ letter

Uh, no. Not QED. The chaplains expressed two concerns, both which seem to be weak objections. If there is any evidence to support their viewpoint, they failed to offer it.