DADT Repeal “Clear and Present Threat to Religious Liberty”

Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a long commentary on the proposed “repeal” of the policy best known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  His position is fairly clear:

Make no mistake: The repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will present a clear and present threat to the religious liberty of those who wear the American uniform, and especially to those who serve as chaplains.

Unless something alters the political context, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is about to become history, and the U.S. military is about to be changed forever. The summer of 2010 may well turn out to be a watershed season in this nation’s life and history. Is anyone paying attention?

Chuck Colson, a noted Christian leader and author, has also made a similar argument.  See the prior commentaries from Archbishop Timothy Broglio and Richard Land.

11 comments

  • And of course, allowing people who break other religious commands is a threat to religious liberty. Which is why divorced and remarried people arebarred from military service.

  • I can’t speak for where you live, but there are quite a few American laws that can be found in one religious text or another. The US Supreme Court has not had a problem with that.

    And for the time being, this isn’t a matter of religious command. Regardless of religious belief, non-sectarian US law currently bans homosexuals from serving in the military. The question is whether that law should be changed. That is a moral judgement from both sides, whether you rely on religion or not.

  • No.. the claim was that it would remove religious liberty. That is a stupid claim as demonstrated by the presence of remarried divorcees in the military. If that does not remove religious freedom from Catholics, then why would the presence of homosexuals?

  • What will this mean for those in the armed forces who believe, based on their sincere religious convictions, that remarriage after divorce is a sin? Advocating or articulating such a viewpoint will be contrary to the military’s official stance and policy?

    And what about military chaplains? What will they be allowed to say and teach about remarriage after divorce? What do they do when, for example, a Christian soldier comes for counsel about his struggles with his desire to remarry after a divorce? How can a chaplain wearing the uniform of the armed forces counsel that what the military says is normal and without moral significance is what the Bible nonetheless declares to be sin?

    The religious liberties of millions of uniformed Americans will be put at immediate risk by the normalization of remarriage after divorce in the military — and these are the very people who are putting their lives on the line to preserve these liberties for others

  • Despite the off-putting mockery, Donalbain raises an interesting point. But he (or she) fails to wrestle with the nature of the exact situation. First, there is no non-discrimination law banning chaplains or Service members from discriminating on the basis of divorce. In fact, the Army spends millions of dollars annually in their “Strong Bonds” program to protect military marriages from the costs and problems of divorce. Second, even if there was a law banning the military discriminating based on divorce or remarriage, divorced or remarried individuals are unlikely to feel the need to force their beliefs on chaplains and other Service members. Unfortunately, as ongoing lawsuits nationwide show, sexual-orientation non-discrimination statutes have been used repeatedly to attack religious liberty and silence religious ministries. And that affect will only be worsened in the context of the military, where disciplinary requirements will leave less room for dissent than does civil society.

    For some more information, go here (I’d particularly recommend clicking on the link to the letter of the 41 chaplains): http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/church-governance/chaplains-get-it-right-about-dangers-of-normalizing-homosexual-behavior-in-military/

    And next time you think about mocking these concerns, remember that they have been stated by men who have faced war–in fact, who have been shot (sometimes repeatedly)–to defend your constitutional rights, including your right to mock them. A little more respectfulness might be in order. You don’t have to agree, but you can be less disagreeable.

  • Sorry, but when someone tries to treat my friends and relations as second class citizens then they DONT deserve my respect.

    And still you havent shown why it is an infringement of religious liberty to allow a gay man to serve, but not to allow a remarried divorcee to serve.

  • Donalbain,

    Did you know that divorces are actually allowed under Mosaic law? The rules are different (divorces are treated much more seriously), but it is specially mentioned.

    Part of the fear over the potential repeal is the likelihood it will be a punishable offense to voice an opinion that homosexual activity is wrong. Making sexual orientation a protected category and therefore all opposing opinions forbidden is an attack on religious liberty.

    Finally, in this cultural battle it sounds like you rank freedom of sexual action higher than volunteering to defend a country that allows such freedom.

  • Jesus said that if you marry after a divorce, you are committing adultery.
    http://bible.cc/matthew/5-32.htm

    The Catholic Church agrees with Jesus.
    http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

    Is the religious liberty of Catholic Chaplains removed because remarried divorcees are allowed to serve?

  • Donalbain,

    Your comparison is not valid. I will attempt a final time to explain this to you.

    Is the religious liberty of Catholic Chaplains removed because remarried divorcees are allowed to serve?

    You are obfuscating the issue; it has nothing to do with “who is allowed to serve.”

    To wit: Under the current laws,

    If a married person expresses a desire for a divorce, any military member is free to express their religious beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of divorce. The military even has official programs to “protect” marriage from divorce. A divorcee is not a protected class.

    If a divorced person expresses a desire for remarriage, any military member is free to express their religious beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of remarriage after divorce. Neither a divorced person nor a remarried person are a protected class.

    If a remarried person goes to a Chaplain, the Chaplain is free to express his religious disagreement with their position (should he actually disagree), he is free to decline to counsel them, and he is free to refer them to another Chaplain. A remarried person is not a protected class.

    Religious freedom “trumps” the sensitivity over topics of divorce and remarriage. Again, marital status is not a protected class, nor is it a Constitutionally-protected right.

    On the other hand, under laws currently under consideration by Congress,

    If a person expressed a homosexual preference, military members would not be free to express their religious beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Expressing those beliefs could potentially result in a complaint of discrimination, resulting in sanction or punishment, because homosexuals would be a protected class.

    If a person with a homosexual preference went to a Chaplain, the Chaplain would not be free to express his religious disagreement with their position, he would not be free to decline to counsel them, and he would not be free to refer them to another Chaplain. Any of those actions could potentially result in a complaint of discrimination, resulting in sanction or punishment, because homosexuals would be a protected class.

    In this case, homosexuality would “trump” the religious freedom of Chaplains and servicemembers. Homosexuality would be a protected class, even though sexual behavior is not a Constitutionally-protected right.

    This is why Chaplains have said:

    We believe that normalizing homosexual conduct in the armed forces will pose a significant threat to chaplains’ and Service members’ religious liberty. The best way to protect religious liberty — and avoid lowering widely-respected religious belief to the level of racism — is simply retaining the current policy to prevent open homosexual behavior in the armed forces.

    At the very least, though, Congress should include comprehensive and robust religious liberty protections in any sort of policy change. Either way, we urge you to protect religious liberty, the first and foremost of America’s fundamental freedoms. (emphasis added)

    Unlike your divorce example, normalizing homosexual conduct — which, again, has nothing to do with “who is allowed to serve” — would directly impact religious freedom, according to those Chaplains and many who oppose the repeal of DADT.

  • Oh for the sake of all that is holy. Repealing DADT has nothing to do with who is allowed to serve? Excuse me while I laugh and then ignore you for being a complete moron.

  • watchtower on-line…

    This debate is useless. I do not see how repealing DADT is any threat to religious liberty, but I can see it as a threat to Military chaplains…however, The US Military is not a religious organization and never will be. Military chaplains do not have a say in how Military personnel live their lives and if they look down upon a person because there sexual orientation is different from their personal or religious beliefs, then they are wrong! No person on this planet has the right to judge anyone else…period! (and don’t give me any religious/supreme court mumbo-jumbo about who can judge and who can’t!)

    That said…

    There are plenty of churches (and preachers) that accept homosexual behavior (lifestyle) so those that need spiritual counseling can go to them verses the Military chaplains.

    Likewise, those that divorce and remarry can go to a justice of the peace (or Las Vegas) instead of Military chaplains.

    As I understand the way things are, Military chaplains SERVE the service members, not the other way around. If I walk into a base chapel I expect to hear the same hell fire and brimstone about what is right or wrong according to those preachers’ beliefs (or those religious beliefs). If I don’t like it I can go somewhere else…the same can be said for the chaplains…if you do not like the Military rules (to include a repeal of DADT) you are free to go somewhere else!

    watchtower off-line…