{"id":41825,"date":"2017-09-19T00:30:24","date_gmt":"2017-09-19T03:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=41825"},"modified":"2017-09-19T08:01:48","modified_gmt":"2017-09-19T11:01:48","slug":"update-responses-to-chaplain-hernandez-and-military-religious-freedom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2017\/09\/19\/update-responses-to-chaplain-hernandez-and-military-religious-freedom\/","title":{"rendered":"Update: Responses to Chaplain Hernandez and Military Religious Freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"

Chaplain Hernandez’s previously discussed column<\/a> on military Christians and religious freedom continues to receive critiques — more accurately, criticism — from a wide variety of sources.<\/p>\n

One of the more interesting responses came from Don Byrd of the Baptist Joint Committee, a left leaning advocacy group that tends to take a more atheistic view of religious liberty than most\u00a0Baptists.<\/p>\n

In a blog entitled “Air Force Chaplain is Wrong to Oppose Religious Liberty Rights for All<\/a>,” Byrd began with a principled\u00a0observation ignored by most [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

Capt. Hernandez is of course free to believe<\/strong> according to his conscience and faith…The controversial issue of salvation for non-Christians is a question of Christian theology, not public policy<\/strong>…<\/p>\n

Personal theological beliefs do not disqualify an individual from public service<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Byrd then added a significant “however” [emphasis added]:\u00a0 <\/p>\n

Hernandez\u2019s post goes well beyond questions of theology. He encourages<\/strong> Christian service members to refuse support<\/strong> for the \u201crights of all Americans.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Whether Hernandez actually “encourages” anyone to take action against others is up for debate,\u00a0as even Byrd acknowledged the ambiguity of what the article actually says and “suggests”:<\/p>\n

Though he does not explain what that refusal should look like, it suggests conduct that could impact fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

However, Hernandez’s statement may not be much different than those of Southern Baptists just a few months ago<\/a>, as they struggled with the idea of “support” for Muslims wanting to build a mosque in New Jersey.\u00a0 In general, they supported<\/strong> the idea of allowing the mosque to be\u00a0built<\/em> — a “passive” support, if you will — but did\u00a0not<\/em> support<\/strong> their faith leaders defending the mosque in\u00a0court — a more “proactive”\u00a0support for the non-Christian religion.\u00a0 Those Southern Baptists had no desire to deny<\/strong> the “fundamental liberties” of Muslims — but they were theologically opposed to (they “refused to support<\/strong>“) advocacy for a hell-bound religion.<\/p>\n

In other words, it kind of depends what you mean by “support.”<\/p>\n

A great many people have criticized Hernandez for his article’s lack of clarity, though they still took Hernandez to task for what they believe<\/em> it says.\u00a0 The article lacks nuance, consistency, and even an agreement on the definitions of terms.\u00a0 In truth, it’s not always clear what it says.<\/p>\n

Importantly,\u00a0Byrd takes issue not with what Hernandez believes<\/strong> or says<\/strong> (even though Byrd disagrees), but what he believe Hernandez is doing.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0It is “government” action, not a government official’s beliefs, that are the source of his concern.\u00a0 This is a significant contrast to most of the other critiques of Hernandez’s column.<\/p>\n

So where is the government action?<\/p>\n

To date — even in the face of many\u00a0complaints from Mikey Weinstein over things Hernandez has said<\/strong> — there isn’t a single public complaint about Hernandez’s actual conduct<\/strong> as any Airman’s chaplain.\u00a0 Hernandez isn’t a newly minted chaplain.\u00a0 If his religious beliefs truly prevented him from performing his duties or warranted him actively denying others their liberties, is it realistic it would never<\/em> have manifested itself?<\/p>\n

Perhaps<\/em> the dramatic criticisms of the “outrageous” article aren’t entirely warranted.<\/p>\n

Byrd closes by noting that<\/p>\n

Supporting the right of all Americans to practice their faith is not inconsistent with Christianity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here Byrd is correct, to the extent that “supporting” means creating, even if only passively, a society in which any person is free to have and exercise the religious beliefs of their choice. The same US law that allows a Muslim to practice their faith in public — or while in government service —\u00a0similarly protects the ability of a Jew, Buddhist, or Christian to do the same.<\/p>\n

The free will to choose to follow God is “religious freedom” — a God-given human right that is protected<\/strong> (not granted<\/strong>) by the US Constitution.<\/p>\n

Also at the Air Force Times<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n