Rep.: Let troops, chaplains openly oppose gays, page 1

I'd wondered if it would come to this. I sure hadn't expected it to come this quickly. Now it seems the debate has become about how much religious freedom our values of freedom of religion allow. The sheer insanity of that statement is simply the exclamation point on the end of a long sentence of interesting and controversial things to happen this year.

The House Armed Services Committee will consider how far service members and chaplains can be forced to bend in the name of diversity and tolerance during Wednesday’s debate on the 2013 defense budget. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., is specifically aiming to protect religious freedom by allowing service members and chaplains to openly oppose gay and lesbian lifestyles and the presence of gay people in the ranks.

Since repeal, he said, “We have heard stories of military chaplains facing censorship for their opposition to the liberal agenda. Liberals may have successfully ended ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ but they should not be allowed to force members of our military to give up their religious beliefs. That is simply unacceptable and unconstitutional.”

Source

Don't Ask, Don't Tell ...Well, It was flawed and couldn't stand as it was. Some of those stories I read and heard related in interviews from the guys themselves were real bad.

I find the idea of taking the new change in policy to reverse the position of forcing one's views upon others, to be offensive and a major step too far. It's not about addressing the rights of Gays but the intrusion of State into the direct practice of religion. In this case, right down to what they can say.

What say everyone? Is there a valid point on this or should Chaplains just adjust and be curtailed in how they can speak to the troops who seek them out?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

---

Here's the thing: When you are in battle you are not going to give a damn if Adam sleeps with Steve. Don't ask, Don't tell was silly because everyone knew who was gay. I've been affliated with the military all my life. My father war in, my sister was, my brother and my husband is. None of them are gay (in fact my father is pretty homophobic), yet all of them supported the repeal of DADT (even though most of them are conservative) because at the end of the day you do the job and you go home.

We are all adults, let's not foster a bunch of infighting within the military just to suit our own agendas. Momma said if you ain't got nothing nice to say don't say it. I don't drive by churches with big signs saying "God is dead", maybe some of these people should take a cue from me and just leave gay people alone.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

---

I'm with you.

This argument is with stupid.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Once again it appears we are allowing the fringe of our society to control the debate.

The thing is, who is the minority? Perhaps I misread you myself on that, but the majority of the nation in reality is Christian. Dramatically, overwhelmingly and by what anyone would call a Super-Majority in other context. A large % of Christian demoninations view this as wrong. Within the Chaplain Tent or other place of worship for those Faiths, it should be none of the Government's business what is said there. Outside the worship setting? It'd be a whole different thing....and becomes what I say is wrong here. The infringement of other people's rights.

United States Religious Denomination Statistics

Here is another source for stats which say much the same thing. Arounf 75-78% of the population in the United States identifies itself as Christian.

2nd source of stats with some additional areas of focus

However....no one is saying we should return to Don't ask, Don't tell in any serious way which could ever happen. It's done, and people deal with it. Let equality be enough...why always going beyond that? Each side need to live with each other now, and make it as easy going as possible. No tolerance for hate, but that goes both directions. It has to.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

---

Within the Chaplain Tent or other place of worship for those Faiths, it should be none of the Government's business what is said there.

No, the Chaplain is a military person ministering to military people. (and furthermore, i thought there was a separation of church and state so why do we need a government paid minister?) If that's your job you shouldn't be there preaching messages that are going to destroy unit cohesion. You still have to work with these people. Common sense should tell you not to make them angry.

reply to post by antonia

---

Okay, the right, wrong or indiffernt of DADT is secondary entirely to this. This is, as the Army Times website reports there, deals with what the Chaplain Corps can be forced to do, not do and say in relation to this topic to those who share the Religious faith they are.

The point I bring this up for isn't to refight the gay in the military debate. It's gone for years, and I agree with everyone else. That fight is over. Finally....and there is no gain to rehashing.

This is the United States Government dictating control of the free expression of religious practice by U.S. citizens. They didn't stop being that, for religious practice, when joining the military. Ask the United States Air Force Academy about that, right after asking them where they just had to build the Worship facility for my Faith. Wicca. The concern is religious freedom, not sexual expression.

One battle is over, the other is well under way...and this is but the latest campaign over the last couple years...one more attempt to order the Pulpit to bend to political will the 1sy Amendment absolutely and without any question, prohibits doing.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

---

One battle is over, the other is well under way...and this is but the latest campaign over the last couple years...one more attempt to order the Pulpit to bend to political will the 1sy Amendment absolutely and without any question, prohibits doing.

The Military isn't a pulpit. Congress has every right to regulate behavior within the military (Well, really it's the DoD that does it, but the DoD has to answer to congress). If a Chaplin has issues with gays he can get out and then preach his message. You have to think about the military as a unit not simply the whims of it's individual members. Coming out saying "I think being gay is wrong" is likely to anger gay members of the military. That destroys unit cohesion and that's bad for the military.

If you are that concerned about your individual rights then you probably shouldn't join the military anyway. I will say you can look in history and see similar crap being spewed when the military was racially integrated. People said it should be ok for racism to be protected speech.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

---

If a Chaplin has issues with gays he can get out and then preach his message.

I was really hoping this topic could be raised and discussed on the basis of the challenge it represents to the Constitution. However anyone may like or not like the fact that a large % of the World's Faiths and Denominations frown upon this in one degree or another, it is the self stated fact of those people.

If that is expressed outside of the very narrow, specific and limited setting of religious expression and worship, I would agree with those who cry foul and say it's hateful. That is the law of the land. We all have to follow it, and that is the whole point I'm making. I can hardly disagree here.

The reverse though, is what this is saying. If the Chaplain who would simply represent the current position and values of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, is among those who now must be told how he may communicate or even HEAR the expression of that faith...it's broken the top value our nation has.

It's the LITERAL point on a very short list which brought the men to our shores to found this nation in the first place. Religious Freedom is the ultimate line in the sand for Constitutional attack...or I would have thought it'd be. If Chaplains can be dictated to by the State, and not the people they serve, then they can just outlaw my faith outright someday.

I shudder to think what could eventually come to other Faiths, depending on the President of the day. That whole line of thinking and slippery slope is why that's always been the Great Firewall of Society.

If Chaplains can be dictated to by the State, and not the people they serve, then they can just outlaw my faith outright someday.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

---

Chaplains are paid by the state. They are government employees of a government agency. Why do you think the state shouldn't dictate what they can preach if they are paying for the sermons?

If you don't want to be told what to preach don't take your paycheck from the government. It's that simple.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

---

That is correct. It's a voluntary activity and there are different denominations within the Chaplain Corps for the different Faiths that need religious counsel. Talk about a place where open counsel is important...

There have been some pretty high profile law suits and such in recent years from people who felt they were being harmed or put down by not attending. I agree with those folks too... It should be 100% voluntary.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

---

Allowing gay people to openly serve will affect good order and discipline....

Just as it did when blacks were allowed to serve in the same fashion as their white counterparts....
A struggle women are still having...

The military adapted and became stronger because of it.

How can a country like the US claim the moral high ground and be the defender of peoples rights while denying a person the right to be who they are here at home?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

---

There is a separation of church and state, and religious freedom for all Americans, regardless whether or not they are in the military. This is not about preachings hate, because religion itself does not teach hate nor does it teach to judge your fellow man, this is about being able to freely practice religion for ALL men who are citizens of this country, this includes being able to learn it regardless of military service.

"No person should be more entitled to the protection of their constitutional rights than the servicemen engaged in protecting the sovereignty of the United States." (88th Congress, first session. Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel. )

When you sign up for Military service no man or women can be denied protection of their freedoms of religion when in the United States military. Period. This means the government cannot censor religion, unless it infringes upon the rights of another person. Quite obviously, if someones religion offends you, you should not be attending their services.. What they personally believe, both before and after coming to the military service, is not the business of the government. Nor can it be abridged.

When you abridge something, you condense it, remove content.. in censoring what is being taught of Christianity to military personnel, you are abridging their freedom of religion. As such, it is denying them their constitutional rights.

Jesus (as) said, I come not to change the law by so much as one dotting of the I or crossing of the t. Yet, you want the United states government to do it.

Part of those teachings deal with the laws concerning the natural state of man. This neither infringes upon the rights of others for someone to hear such teachings, nor does it incite others to violence, because Christianity does not believe in either judging others, or hurting others. There is nothing in these teachings that oppose either military service, or conflict in any way with the rights of others.

the christian army doesn't like women either, well not as people

Rape within the US military has become so widespread that it is estimated that a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire....

well maybe they do like men

...But military rape is not only a women's issue. According to the Veterans Affairs Office, 37% of the sexual trauma cases reported last year were men. "Men are even more isolated than women following rape," Bhagwati says. "Because it has an even bigger social stigma."

www.guardian.co.uk...

they say 1 third of the women in the US army get raped and that that is only a small fraction the majority of rapes go unreported
newsjunkiepost.com...

Norway To Open Century Old Package
  Posted 19 days ago with 127 member flags

World\'s richest woman calls for Australian workers to be paid $2 a day to compete with Africans
  Posted 6 days ago with 69 member flags

Blame The Real Bad Guys - The Powers Behind Super Powers
  Posted 18 days ago with 65 member flags

19 Yr Old Hostage Gunned Down By Police While Escaping Captor
  Posted 8 days ago with 53 member flags

DHS Source: “It’s going hot”
  Posted 14 days ago with 49 member flags

Police Shoot Another 911 Caller In Her Own Backyard
  Posted 19 days ago with 46 member flags

50,000 people have 90 mins evacuate , Percy Quinn Dam expected to break
  Posted 12 days ago with 46 member flags

The Oatmeal\'s Tesla Fundraiser Pushes Past $1.1M
  Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: