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

[Bob_Aliano]

I can’t say I that I had that experience (in the Navy), either.

On the other hand, it has been reported in the news over the years. Here is a snippet:

npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=4772331

While deployed on submarines I never had the blessing of a Chaplain never mind a Catholic one! We were content to have someone read some scripture.

As for the title of this thread; it’s probably more important to ask if volunteer servicemen and women have the right to choose with whom they serve. If the government wants to disregard the (name removed by moderator)ut of servicemen and women they should return to the draft.

 

[Veridical16]

I agree, just as I agree that if chasing and catching skirt is the end-all for heterosexual soldiers, they don’t belong in uniform either.

I agree with that. Especially when prioritizing the mission. I’m pretty sure they have the right to discipline those unfocused 'straight soldiers as well as LtC Allen West attests to their 'rules in military conduct.

The good bishop is of another era, and I don’t know if he was ever a military chaplain.

I’m not sure if he was. There is a speech Sheen gave at West Point though. He was very much understanding of God & Country.

Archbishop Brogolio from the article, though reiterates the flaw in demanding “constitutional rights”

Rather, he said, the military reserves to itself the right to deny individuals that privilege – just as soldiers may forfeit the privilege of military service in many other ways, through their speech and behavior.

“While I presume that Judge Phillips has a better preparation in Constitutional law than I do,”cool: he’s giving too much credit to judges – preparation =/= adherence to it) the prelate reflected, “**it seems to me that there is no blanket ‘right’ in the Constitution to serve in the Armed Forces.” **He posed a question to critics of the ban on open homosexuality: “Does the military not have the right to choose who will serve?” In virtually all capacities, he observed, officials makes such choices rigorously.

“As the shepherd for Catholics in the military,” he said, “I am continually faced by the fact that priests can be excluded from military service because of health or weight problems or because of their age. Are those distinctions discriminatory?”

And just as with most of these “gay rights” veneer of constitutional freedoms, it’s merely a vehicle to use it at the expense of religious freedoms.

“As Catholics,” he warned, “we must be attentive to the protection of our freedom of religion”-- neither subordinating it to the idea of tolerance, nor trading it for the mere “freedom of worship.” If members of the Church do not defend this freedom in the public square, he said, “we may well lose it.”

 

[sedonaman]

I can’t say I that I had that experience (in the Navy), either.

On the other hand, it has been reported in the news over the years. Here is a snippet:

npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=4772331

NPR is Left wing. Left wingers are known to be hostile to religion [with the possible exception of Islam] and the military. I don’t think you could get an objective story out of them on either subject.

---

"The indispensable condition of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”

 

[sedonaman]

I agree with that. Especially when prioritizing the mission. I’m pretty sure they have the right to discipline those unfocused 'straight soldiers as well as LtC Allen West attests to their 'rules in military conduct.

I’m not sure if he was. There is a speech Sheen gave at West Point though. He was very much understanding of God & Country.

Archbishop Brogolio from the article, though reiterates the flaw in demanding “constitutional rights”

And just as with most of these “gay rights” veneer of constitutional freedoms, it’s merely a vehicle to use it at the expense of religious freedoms.

---

"The indispensable condition of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”

 

[sedonaman]

The “slippery slope” is a fallacy. Sure it is.

………Civil rights movement [push for equal treatment of races before the law]
…………………………. Equal opportunity declared
……………………………………Equal outcomes declared [radical egalitarianism]
…………………………………………. “All we want is to be left alone”
………………………………………….…….Stonewall riots
……………………………………………………“Out of the closet”
………………………………………….……………“Rainbow” curriculum
…………………………………………………………Domestic partner benefits
…………………………………………………………“Don’t ask; don’t tell” compromise
…………………………………………………………Lawrence v Texas
…………………………………………………………….Demands for moral approval
………………………………………………………………Demands for same-sex “marriage”
………………………………………………………………SSM recognized in some states
………………………………………………………………Demands to abolish DADT
……………………………………………………………….SSM ordered by courts [no more taboos]
……………………………………………………………….Society abolished

---

"What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a Leftist demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.”

 

[Lujack]

Don’t be too sure. In any event, the burden of proof is on the advocate of social change; it’s not on the advocate of the status quo to prove it’s not a good idea. So far, the advocates have not made their case.

---

"The indispensable condition of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”

I think the opposite, actually. The burden of proof should be on those who advocate a restriction.

 

[estesbob]

I think the opposite, actually. The burden of proof should be on those who advocate a restriction.

And the adequacy of the proof should be determined by the elected representatives of the people-not the courts

 

[Bob_Aliano]

And the adequacy of the proof should be determined by the elected representatives of the people-not the courts

I disagree. The elected officials whom you are asking for an opinion change every two years and with that personnel change comes attitude change. The Higher courts, especially the SCOTUS represent, in theory at least, a continuum of opinion based on the Constitution.