Number of Chaplains Opposing DADT Repeal Increases
The Alliance Defense Fund previously wrote a letter to President Obama in which 41 retired Chaplains, speaking freely since they are outside military service, opposed the repeal of the policy known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell” on religious freedom grounds.
Last Friday they added to that number, with 25 new signatories. As noted at the ADF,
The letter states, “By raising homosexual behavior to the same protected class 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.”
The release of the letter nearly coincided with the controversial Washington Times article quoting LtGen Thomas Bostick making statements he subsequently denied. However, as noted previously, the position supported by Bostick’s denied statements was defended by homosexual advocates. Thus, homosexual advocates may yet attempt to impose on the military the position that opposition to homosexuality is morally equivalent to racism.
ADF attorney Daniel Blomberg noted the impact of marginalizing legitimate religious beliefs could be significant.
“If this is the military’s new zero-tolerance standard, then not one of these decorated, heroic, and honorable chaplains [who signed the letter] would be able to serve today,” Blomberg said. “The ability of field commanders to operate will be severely constrained if Christian service members are marginalized or even discharged.”
Pingback: ADF Alliance Alert » ChristianFighterPilot.com: Number of chaplains opposing DADT repeal increases
I hate to break it to you but military policy is not supposed to be crafted to appease or pander to a religious minority. Moreover, it may come as a shock but if you are prejudiced against someone because of their sexual orientation then it is not different than racial based prejudice and bigotry. For that matter, it is no different than being prejudiced against someone for their religious behavior or choosing to embrace a certain religion.
BTW, the vast majority of Americans know that sexual orientation is not a behavior nor mutable. Sexual orientation is the attraction to males, females, both or neither. It’s really pretty simple.
This comment by CriticalThinker is a perfect example of the foolish and illogical and hateful thinking that must be defended against. Sexual behavior is a behavior, not a race or ethnicity or religion. This is not about prejudice against someone because of their sexual orientation, but about defending religious freedom and the ability to raise our children as we see fit by informing them of the dangers and evils of homosexuality. This notion that people who want to keep homosexuals out of the military or keep marriage as between one man and one woman as bigotry is absurd and a clear example of the hatred of the homosexual agenda towards people who do not hold completely 100% to their position. Homosexuals can do whatever they want, but when they start attacking our religious freedoms and telling us how to raise our children we must defend ourselves at all costs.
The idea that the vast majority of Americans know that sexual orientation is not a behavior or immutable is silly propaganda. I have kept up with news on homosexuality avidly for many years now and they always say that polls show that marriage amendments will fail by a landslide in every state that has held such elections. Guess what happened? These polls have never been right once and I have read all of them. They are hardly worth reading anymore, because they always come back a short time later with egg on their face.
The worst part is that I can point out all the facts and studies and logical proofs I want, but only very rarely will the person listen. This post is to those who are being misled by these simple fallacies, which are easily disproved. This is a battle and there is no middle ground as others would like you to think.
Go back and change every reference to homosexuality and replace it with miscengation. It still makes just as much sense.
This comment by CriticalThinker is a perfect example of the foolish and illogical and hateful thinking that must be defended against. Sexual behavior is a behavior, not a race or ethnicity or religion. This is not about prejudice against someone because of their sexual orientation, but about defending religious freedom and the ability to raise our children as we see fit by informing them of the dangers and evils of miscengation. This notion that people who want to keep miscenagnists out of the military or keep marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race as bigotry is absurd and a clear example of the hatred of the miscenganist agenda towards people who do not hold completely 100% to their position. Miscenganists can do whatever they want, but when they start attacking our religious freedoms and telling us how to raise our children we must defend ourselves at all costs.
The idea that the vast majority of Americans know that sexual orientation is not a behavior or immutable is silly propaganda. I have kept up with news on miscengation avidly for many years now and they always say that polls show that marriage amendments will fail by a landslide in every state that has held such elections. Guess what happened? These polls have never been right once and I have read all of them. They are hardly worth reading anymore, because they always come back a short time later with egg on their face.
The worst part is that I can point out all the facts and studies and logical proofs I want, but only very rarely will the person listen. This post is to those who are being misled by these simple fallacies, which are easily disproved. This is a battle and there is no middle ground as others would like you to think.
I am not sure if Donalbain does not understand or refuses to understand, but from his previous comments on other articles I suspect he is merely a troll. For those wondering what miscengation, which is not a word, I believe he meant, miscegenation, which means he did not read my post.
I am pleased with what I wrote earlier, but forgot to add that the first few words of the first amendment read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
To repeal DADT would change Christian beliefs in the military services as DADT. There is no middle ground.
Sorry, but why does allowing miscengenation not change christian beliefs in the military? There are Christians who have a religious opposition to mixed race marriage.
If someone opposes miscengenation and the military allows it, are they not having their freedom of religion denied?
Don,
What line of business are you in? I’m just trying to see if there is a way to use what you are familiar with to attempt to describe the military culture.
I am not interested in a discussion about myself.
Wow.. its almost as if I said that already.
Joe — This is not just about religious freedom, but freedom for everyone. You talk about the evils and dangers of homosexuality…what are those? I know lots of gay persons, active duty and civilian, who are not evil or dangerous…in fact I trust them with my life. All of them conduct themselves in a professional manner and their integrity is above reproach. I’m not saying that everyone is perfect…the pedophile preachers, corrupt city government officials, lazy people on welfare etc…, but I do believe most people just want to have a good life of their own choosing.
I had no idea anyone was attacking religious freedom by being gay. Religion is a choice just like being a homosexual. We must defend all freedoms, not just those the religious people want or don’t want.
What does changing Christian beliefs in the military services have to do with the first amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” anyway? Are Christians in the Military anymore special then Christians not in the Military?
evils and dangers of homosexuality? Well, the average lifespan for the homosexual is nearly 40 years less than the average person due to STD’s and domestic abuse, it is a sin that most people can agree with, it promotes the disintegration of the family, most volunteers in the military will no longer want to do so because of the official approval of homosexual behavior, huge emotional instability, etc. These are well established facts that are abundant and well documented, but people seem to forget or dismiss.
This is not about the dangers of homosexuals, but of the homosexual agenda itself to silence all who are opposed to their way of life. There is no attack against religious freedom by being gay. Homosexuals can do whatever they want with each other, but when they go out of their way to attack Christianity and those who do not fully hold to their position then people must defend themselves.
The idea that people who practice homosexuality are endangering religious freedoms by being gay is ridiculous. This is just another straw men argument, or a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues here.
We must not defend all freedoms. That is a blanket statement that assumes that homosexuality is a right of some sort. Is running a red light a right or fixing an election a right? That is why we make laws.
Is being a Christian more “special” in the Mililtary? I really do not know. I know that the moral and ethical standards in the Military are significantly different than the civilian world, but not in the ways.
As a top general recently stated “Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them. But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out.”
Recent hate crimes legislature also makes speech against homosexuality potentially a crime as well. With this repeal soldiers and chaplains will be sentenced and discharged due to discrimination just for sharing their deeply held religious beliefs. Anyone can go to the women’s shower and enjoy the show.
“I know lots of gay persons, active duty and civilian, who are not evil or dangerous…in fact I trust them with my life. All of them conduct themselves in a professional manner and their integrity is above reproach. I’m not saying that everyone is perfect…the pedophile preachers, corrupt city government officials, lazy people on welfare etc…,” I agree with only this.
Why are you guys even posting on this site? This is a site for Christians.
Joe — I post to this website because it’s here, the owner hasn’t asked me not to, and because I think its important to hear [read] all sides to the debate.
I agree that some may die sooner rather than later from STD’s, but thanks to research and education most westernized nations have given the general populace information on how to avoid these dangers. The CDC has a list of the top 15 death related statistics and you are more likely to die from an assault (homicide-#15) than being gay.
You are mixing rights and freedoms in the wrong context. We are free to be who we want, gay or straight, but running a red light is not a legal freedom so please don’t patronize us with this kind on nonsense.
Men and Women are free to marry, have kids, send them to college and tell them the icky gay people are the devil if they wish; so I don’t see how gay people are going to affect this nor is it reasonable to assume there will be any disintegration of the “family” life style if that’s what you want.
I think we need laws to prevent someone for causing bodily harm to another person for being gay for sure. Why would we need laws to keep people from saying they disagree with the gay lifestyle…are there some other words you’d rather use to make you feel better about it? How is your disagreement going to affect me from shooting the bad guy or driving my tank or flying my airplane and dropping bombs? I’m in a professional orgainzation and do my job to the best of my ability. My “lifestyle” has no bearing on my ability to do my job. If blasting me with hateful words (like fag, butt-boy or flammer) or shunning me at the squadron picnic makes you fell better, then by all means, go for it…you kniow, if it makes you feel better.
I’m OK with the Chaplins not wanting to talk to me if he/she are afraid they might be somehow infected by the icky gay people if it’s against their beliefs. There are plenty of other compassionate/understanding people in the world beside Chaplains’.
I keep reading this statement “This is just another straw men argument, or a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues here” What does this mean? Are you saying we don’t understand the Christian belief/feeling of the issue? Well, I think we do sir, quit well in fact. Would it surprise you to know that most are OK with how you feel about it and we just want to be free to choose our mate, lifestyle and family just like you!
Watchtower; you are a liar. The life expectancy of a homosexual is not 40 years less than heterosexuals. There is no law against speech against homosexuality.
Apologies. Joe is the liar. Not watchtower.
CDC says otherwise. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract I do not have the study on hand that documents a life expectancy even less than that, but it is older and the CDC one I reference here is more recent and says it is merely 20 years less on average. Here is another recent study that documents 1 in 5 homosexual men are HIV positive. 44% of those who tested positive did not even know it. Data on the reasons for the decreased life expectancy in lesbian women is more difficult to obtain, but apparently it is due to domestic abuse, HIV (due to heterosexual sex. homosexual men like to have sex with men and homosexual women like to have sex with men. go figure.), and others. Honestly it has been a bit since I have read the studies, but I will try and dig them up. I have to dig through my hard copy archives to get the exact figures.
Here is another one: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf. This one references International Journal of
Epidemiology, but is easier to read and shorter. There are several studies out there if you look.
Watchtower said:
An interesting point, but a judgment of which you, too, are guilty. You seem to forget that the vast majority of the world — irrespective of exclusive theology — believes “unnatural sexuality” (in all its forms) is neither a right nor a freedom. In many places, it has become a “freedom” and in others a “right.” However, there is no basis in law, tradition, or history to assert that any form of sexuality is an absolute right or freedom.
In your statement about “imperfection,” you mentioned “pedophiles,” specifically, “pedophile priests.” That such a person is “imperfect” is a moral judgment on your part, the basis for which should need be no different than someone else’s moral judgment against homosexuality. Your statements here appear to be intellectually consistent; however, despite the fact you are “ok” with something, not everyone who advocates for the homosexual lifestyle agrees.
Those who assert that moral opposition to homosexuality is “bigoted” have naturally called for silencing that opposition. It is logical to foresee a similar outcome in any government institution that not only removes prohibitions on homosexual service, but also adds sexual behavior to a list of protected classes.
American judicial and legislative history have long recognized that society benefits from a moral populace.
Joe – The General you quoted has denied and repudiated those statements.
watchtower,
you state that men and women are free to marry. I remember applying for a marriage license, and marriage is regulated. And I am glad polygamy and incest are illegal.
how do you define family? I define core family as Dad, Mom, Kids.
for freedoms: the military restricts sexual freedoms. I can’t have an affair, regardless of whether I can still fly after I cheat. Ability to do the job is not the issue, standards are.
I was not aware of that. Thanks. Do you write the articles JD?
JD – to be fair I did say “preachers” not “priests” so as not to just blame it all on the RCC, other religions are just as guilty. I use the word “preachers” to indicate the collective whole, knowing full well the RCC prefers the term priests.
Now, pedophilia preachers “pray” on young and innocent children, a crime (rape would be a good description too); very different from 2 consenting [gay] adults desiring each others company, which is not a crime. If that means it is a moral judgment, well OK then, but you imply a gay person cannot be moral. We are quit capable of distinguishing right from wrong despite our sexual orientation.
I find your statement about what the vast majority of the world feels about unnatural sexuality a bit suspect, considering that Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Britain, Germany, Uruguay, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland allow gay people to serve in their Military’s…many of which are our allies too.
As I said to Joe, most gay people have no problem with the Christian belief that their lifestyle [gay] is incompatible with theirs. That said, there is still no reason not to allow gays to serve openly in the US Military and that is intellectually consistent with the rest of the world.
American judicial and legislative history have long recognized that society benefits from a moral populace…and this is because our morals have been corrected over and over and over again for being so wrong so many times…slavery, racial discrimination, segregation, women right to vote etc, etc, etc.
Joe – I’m sorry, I cannot accept any statistical analysis from the Traditional Values Coalition. They are a political organization and advocate for the religious agenda and therefore biased. I will admit that any organization can tweak statistical data, so to be fair I won’t mention statistical data with regard to the DADT issue anymore.
Dealer — the license is another form of tax. It also registers the married party with the state for legal issues like kids and property rights. It can prevent wrong doing like a woman trying to marry her high school student.
Living together makes more sense these days to avoid the red-tape. As a side note, most Military people tend to stay as far away form the gates of their bases so they can lead the life they want to (for the most part) and not worry too much about who is watching. My unit does very little together because we all know way too much of the other persons business as it is. A buddy of mine has a few beers every night to relax and unwind. He said his boss mentioned in an office meeting that he would suspect a person might be an alcoholic if they did the same thing as my buddy. Nuts…sorry I digress.
Polygamy is more of a Mormon thing but I’m sure others have done it too. Incest, of course, is right up their with pedophile preachers…just wrong. Not sure if you are trying to attempt to relate these to homosexuality because thats not a crime like the other two.
Unfortunately adultery is not punished in the Military as much as some people might think. I know it gets swept under the rug now days more often then not because most don’t see it as a crime per se, but a hugh mistake. If a Military person gets into too much trouble then there goes the child support and/or alimony and most people will look the other way. Seems to be the norm for a lot of gay folks too, they just aren’t as evil as some wish us to believe. In my 35 years in Military service, standards are guides, just like AF instructions and interrupted many different ways.
I define family as those I love and those who love me.
Thanks Joe. You proved my point. Your study did not show a life expectancy 40 years lower. You lied.
Watchtower — So did you read the one from the CDC or check out the source material for the traditional values link I posted the International Journal of Epidemiology? When you read a study you need to see how the study was done and what their sources were to see if their facts were accurate. As far as not accepting data from Traditional Values as being skewed I read news from skewed sites like 365gay so as to understand the gay position and how they think and what is important to them. Sure the people on these gay news sites may be nuts, but I will still investigate what they have to say to see if there is any truth to one of their claims or another. I also do so to see how and where they may have come to their current understanding of an issue.
I could ask why you are even posting on this site at all. What’s the point? You don’t seem to adhere to the positions this site affirms. Many of the other posters here do not seem to either. It’s like going to church and telling the pastor he’s nuts week after week. Then again that is exactly what the homosexual community is doing in regards to “same sex” marriage. They want to destroy marriage. I have to wonder if that is what is going on here by certain posters.
Oddly enough polygamy is not condemned in the Bible. I’m pretty sure pedophilia is not condemned in the Bible either except possibly where it talks about how repugnant it is to corrupt a child and how it would be better if that person had never been born.
Why do we have an armed forces? Because we have enemies and we need to be protected. The same is true for religious freedoms and our current freedom to raise our children as we see fit.
Here is a rhetorical question? If it doesn’t matter what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home/bedroom what is wrong with euthanasia or drug dealing?
1) Nothing is wrong with euthanasia.
2) Nothing is wrong with drug dealing.
You say that having a military is necessary to defend your freedom, including your freedom to raise your children as you see fit. How does the service of a gay military person prevent you from raising your children the way you see fit? Does the fact that Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach served in the airforce for 19 years somehow mean that you are unable to raise your children?
watchtower,
My experience in the military has been categorically different than yours. I’m very interested in ‘most Military people tend to stay as far away form the gates of their bases so they can lead the life they want to.’ For all 5 bases that I have been stationed most of my peers have lived off-base because the housing was better. Since housing off-base near the base tends to be lessor quality, people tend to live farther away. Additionally, those people tend to cluster in particular neighborhoods, negating the ‘who’s watching’ idea.
I’m sorry that your squadron is unable culturally to enjoy the camaraderie I enjoyed in my fighter unit. There were significant differences between many of us (to the point the wives had a civil war once), but we still had parties both on and off base for the squadron. I miss that aspect of the fighter unit more than anything (although pulling G’s and going supersonic is a very close second). I also submit that your buddy is probably an alcoholic, although the test is what would happen if he was unable to get his few beers one night. For that matter, what would happen the first day he stepped downrange and was unable to drink for the next few months?
Living together is a classic example of worldly wisdom. I submit that you should have spent enough time with a person in meaningful activity (committed to the principle of not living or sleeping together first), to know if that person is right for you to marry. I know that is a tall challenge and is one that I did not meet well personally, but I choose to have a standard that I struggled to maintain myself.
I’m mentioning incest and polygamy as two other situations that are illegal regardless of whether the relationship is consensual. You maintain that sexual freedom is a right, yet you agree that incest is wrong (you didn’t state it, but I’m assuming contextually you think polygamy is wrong too).
Same for your example with the marriage license. Rational argument shows that not everyone is allowed to marry another they please. Define why it is wrong for a teacher to marry a student (I agree it is wrong, but want to hear it in your words).
Adultery is not always punished, and isn’t always punished with UCMJ. It would be interesting to know the amount of gay people who are known but yet stay compared with adulterers that are known and stay. Regardless, it’s a standard in the AF that no one is arguing against, yet results in otherwise qualified people leaving the service. How is that different from DADT policy?
Finally, I like your definition of family. I hope you have a large family under those terms. Do you delineate between core and extended family? My extended family is like yours, but my core family is three (also why I’m up at 3 in the morning…side note).
“1) Nothing is wrong with euthanasia.
2) Nothing is wrong with drug dealing.”
It is really hard to debate ethics with someone who has no concept of right and wrong on a very fundamental level. The reason for him having no concept of right and wrong is most likely because he has chosen to abandon them. In the Netherlands where Euthanasia has been legalized the longest you can be killed if you want, and the doctor agrees. You can also be killed by your doc if your family agrees and you are perfectly healthy.
What is wrong with that you say? Really? This is why it is difficult to rationalize with someone with a fluid understanding of right and wrong.
Drug dealing and use is wrong because it is condemned in the Bible as witchcraft and is dangerous, because of the people who are desperate for their next fix will kill you for the $20 to get their next fix. Is this not obvious? I feel like I am wasting space just repeating such basic things.
Incest is wrong because the Bible says that it is wrong. Sex between adults and minors is also wrong because of the position of authority they have over the youth who has no way to defend themselves or to make healthy informed decisions for themselves let alone all of the health reasons.
Our armed forces protect our religious freedoms, because they were set up to protect our religious freedoms. Do you not know what our country was founded upon? Read the US Constitution. As such we hold our servicemen to a higher standard. If we didn’t we would get what we have in other countries where being gay and serving in the military is either a right or a privilege. What you get is people who can be discharged for sharing their faith privately to another fellow officer/serviceman.
From what little I have heard on Biblical witchcraft there were some mood altering drugs used for effect, but even if you do not want to use that argument you can use Paul’s statement that that he will not let anything that he does be the master of him. The Bible says it best here:
“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Cor. 6:12).
That makes more sense than the way i was trying to explain it.
Dealer —
I’d say that most flying squadrons have better camaraderie as a whole than non flying ones.; although I’ve been in some “DO” organizations that were better then others. Overseas units also seem better at camaraderie then then states…maybe its because of the cultural differences or something else.
With regards to marrying the student, I’ll qualify that as “under the legal age” as being wrong. Parents or the state couldn’t stop an 18 year old from marrying their teach of course, so two consenting adults rule applies (as it applies in this issues). Incest happens, illegal yes (if they are caught of course). I do agree underage marriage and incest are wrong behaviors as well as anything against children who aren’t mature enough to make decisions on their own (educated/experienced).
<>
Now, its way past time to talk about the policy of DADT. My position is to just do away with it period. Make no other rules. Let the gay persons deal with the repercussions as a result of their admittance. We have laws (and UCMJ) in place right now to deal with just about everything. For example, if a gay person is say beaten up, then the purps are punished for assault just like in civilian society (career over for a crime probably too). If gays are called names or shunned, then so be it…if their feelings are hurt too dam bad. We don’t go around calling fat people fat or ugly people ugly (although we really do) but it serves no purpose but to hurt people.
If two guys are room mates and don’t care about either persons sexual orientation ok, but if you do, make your objection known and tell the other guy to stay on his side of the room. If one is afraid his room mate might be looking at his willy and drooling, big deal, if he is insecure with his man hood well too dam bad. If a fight breaks out they are guilty of assault and go to jail. If one guy jumps another in his sleep then thats rape (guys are not likely to report that though). I could go on and on. We can also what-if this to death, but if you really take the time to think about it, we already know the likely outcome…95% will NOT out themselves and if they do it will be to a very small and trusting group of close friends. If others find out well thats just too dam bad.
I fully respect the Christian moral belief that the homosexual life-style is against their beliefs, but not against mine. Your position is no higher up on the food chain then mine so until there is some proof that your preferred life-style is in any way prevented by the homosexual life-style I think its time to move on.
I can already hear JD’s pen hitting the paper…fire away big guy…goodnight all.
watchtower,
Good points, but the logical extension of your argument is that the military should be completely neutral with gender, to the point that women and men should room and shower together. I submit that your attitude on sexual assault is damaging to unit cohesion and morale.
The second problem is under the current repeal law, expressing your objection to homosexuality is the same as expressing an objection to someone’s race. Therefore, your situation is unrealistic as the person objecting is under threat of reprimand.
I do agree with you on the likely outcome: the vast majority will be very discreet in revealing.
Sorry, but I think I beat JD to the paper…
Pingback: God and Country » Survey: Military Majority Backs DADT Repeal, Chaplains Protest