![\"\"](\"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/bidentg2.jpg\")
President Joe Biden\u2019s reversal of the military ban on transgenders hadn\u2019t even been announced for minutes before it claimed its first controversy.<\/p>\nPresident Joe Biden\u2019s reversal of the military ban on transgenders hadn\u2019t even been announced for minutes before it claimed its first controversy.<\/p>\n
US Army Chaplain (MAJ) Andrew Calvert posted a comment on the Army Times Facebook page<\/a> discussing Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin\u2019s support for repeal. As quoted by the Army Times in a follow-up story<\/a>, Chaplain Calvert said<\/p>\n \u201cHow is rejecting reality (biology) not evidence that a person is mentally unfit (ill), and thus making that person unqualified to serve,\u201d Andrew Calvert posted on the Army Times Facebook page Monday. \u201cThere is little difference in this than over those who believe and argue for a \u2018flat earth,\u2019 despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary\u2026<\/p>\n \u201cThe motivation is different,\u201d Calvert continued, \u201cbut the argument is the same. This person is a MedBoard for Mental Wellness waiting to happen. What a waste of military resources and funding!\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n First of all, it used to be a standard talking point in training that \u201cthe Army Times is not your friend.\u201d The Army\/Air Force\/Navy\/Marine Corps Times family of \u201cnewspapers\u201d is a commercial enterprise. They profit off controversy \u2013 and Chaplain Calvert handed them just the thing they needed. (For context, when they posted on Facebook about Chaplain Calvert being investigated, it received more than 2,000 comments. Average posts on their page get about 70.)<\/p>\n Second, the standard adage is \u201cnever read [much less participate in] the comments.\u201d Frankly, there is little redeeming value in posting in the comments section of any<\/em> media organization\u2019s publications. (Chaplain Calvert has his own website<\/a>, as well, which as yet has not been criticized.)<\/p>\n Third, can a US Army Chaplain say something like that?<\/p>\n It\u2019s important to remember that US military chaplains, and US military members themselves, are explicitly allowed to express their religious beliefs. Chaplain Calvert can go on any social media site he wants and post \u201cJesus Christ is the only way to heaven,\u201d and the US military not only shouldn\u2019t<\/em> do anything about it, it should forcefully defend<\/em> his ability to do that, even as a member of the US military. A chaplain — and any<\/em> member of the US military — is permitted to express their religious beliefs<\/em>.<\/p>\n This was affirmed just a few months ago with the US military’s latest updates to its religious liberty policies<\/a>. The same is true if a military member chooses to publicly explain the Christian theological position on transgenderism.<\/p>\n Without sidetracking into the detailed theology, the fact that God created man and woman separately, the fact that rejecting biology is to reject God\u2019s design, and the fact that such actions and beliefs are wrong<\/em> are absolutely relevant, defensible, and permissible statements of religious belief \u2013 even for members of the US military.<\/p>\n Likewise, on a Military Times article about a progressive military chaplain being commissioned, an atheist member of the US military can absolutely post in the comments that he thinks Christians are wrong to put their faith in a \u201csky fairy\u201d.<\/p>\n But can that atheist then say that Christians are unfit to serve? That may be where Chaplain Calvert may have an issue, even if those policy decisions were made in the absence of evidence<\/a> to satisfy the emotional and political narrow agenda of a few.<\/p>\n Criticizing the issue<\/em> of normalizing men who choose to declare themselves women (or vice versa) certainly falls within the bounds of religious ideology. Whether or not those people<\/em> are \u201cqualified to serve\u201d, however, is a political<\/em> decision, not a religious<\/em> one. (It used to be an issue of merit-based qualification,<\/em> but that bridge was burned long ago on the pyre of political pandering.) The question, then, is whether any<\/em> member of the US military (chaplain or not) can question the \u201cfitness\u201d of another potential servicemember. Given what has happened in the past, the answer is uncertain.<\/p>\n To be fair, there is some legitimacy to the issue of mental or medical fitness for duty. Objectively, people who are one gender yet believe themselves to be another do have a disconnect from reality, whether consciously chosen or not. Current DoD policies still acknowledge the stress of that cognitive \u201cchallenge.\u201d<\/p>\n Remember, even though President Biden is directing the Executive Branch to remove barriers to transgenders to serve, prior military policies are technically still in place. Various DoD Instructions<\/a> and Policies<\/a> regarding transgenders in the US military, including limiting service or accession<\/em>, are still published on DoD and government websites (though they’ll likely soon be scrubbed or annotated as “under review” in some fashion):<\/p>\n In the very least, even those policies that allowed continued service by transgenders in the military required them to demonstrate stability in their \u201cpreferred gender\u201d (the official term) over some set period of time.<\/p>\n More poignantly, just a few years ago PFC Bradley (Chelsea) Manning defended himself from charges of aiding the enemy and espionage by saying…he was unfit to serve. Manning claimed the US military, rather than he, was responsible because it had failed to revoke his security clearance<\/a> despite the \u201cclear signs of emotional distress\u201d that left him \u201cnearly paralyzed by internal struggles over his belief that he was a woman trapped in a man\u2019s body.\u201d He was not some conservative supremacist trying to score political points \u2013 he was an \u201cactual transgender\u201d person making the declaration that he had been \u201cunfit\u201d to hold a security clearance.<\/p>\n In short, it is no stretch to question whether removing all restrictions on service by transgenders is a non-issue or a \u201cMedBoard waiting to happen.\u201d<\/p>\n It is notable, too, that various people<\/a> have<\/em> said Christians are unfit for service<\/a> when their Christian faith does not align<\/a> with what others think<\/a> the policies should be (though they haven’t said the same of Muslims<\/a>). In fact, Chaplain Calvert’s own fitness for service has been questioned based on nothing more than these comments.\u00a0 This has occurred despite the fact the US Constitution prohibits the government from restricting the free exercise of religion. (By contrast, there is not currently a recognized protected right \u2013 constitutional, human, or otherwise \u2013 to be treated by others or the government in accordance with a gender that you<\/em> decide.) Right or wrong, it is not uncommon for the fitness to serve to be questioned in virtually any criticized demographic.<\/p>\n Chaplain Calvert\u2019s statement somewhat reflected military policy that was current when he made that statement. It is possible an understanding leadership will acknowledge the challenges of troops trying to adjust to fairly significant policy reversals (as they did when President Trump reversed the policy a few years ago) and act with a little grace. (Importantly, President Biden’s order<\/a> told the military to figure out how to implement<\/em> his order. The order itself changed nothing — and, at the time of Calvert’s statement, no policies had changed from the Trump administration.) That grace will certainly not<\/em> be extended by those politically inclined to see him crucified regardless.<\/p>\n It is important to be clear that there is no \u201creligious freedom\u201d protection for a military member to say that a homosexual, transgender, Muslim, Satanist, Libertarian, or Packers fan is \u201cunfit\u201d to serve.\u00a0 Generally speaking, it is probably also unkind, if not unhelpful, to equate someone\u2019s mental health with \u201cflat earthers\u201d \u2013 even if the basic premise is valid.<\/p>\n Chaplain Calvert will likely get some heat, but some of his critics will likely be blind to the irony of their own accusations. Retired Navy SEAL Senior Chief Kristin (Christopher) Beck is frequently vaunted as the face of the transgender movement in the military. He was quoted in the Military Times trying, unsuccessfully, to describe a chaplain\u2019s job:<\/p>\n \u201cChaplains should support all troops and their belief systems, said Beck, 54. \u201cAnd if they don\u2019t, they are constitutionally in conflict.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n To borrow a phrase, \u201cEvery word of what you just said is wrong.\u201d Well, you could probably say chaplains \u201csupport all troops\u201d in the same way the general public \u201cshould\u201d. But chaplains do not<\/em> support the belief systems of all troops. (Besides, the “belief system” that includes a gender contrary to biology isn’t a religious<\/em> belief system at all.) In fact, to require them to do so would violate the Constitution. Can you imagine a scenario in which a Muslim was required to support the belief<\/em> system of a Jew? That doesn’t happen.<\/p>\n Rather, chaplains work with military commanders to ensure the military has the environment in place for each servicemember to exercise his faith, regardless what that faith is \u2013 including, by the way, the faith of Christianity. So a Muslim chaplain does<\/em> work to make sure a Jewish troop has the ability to exercise his faith, but chaplains are not required to \u201csupport their belief system.\u201d<\/p>\n As might be expected, Mikey Weinstein’s group went after Calvert for his Christian beliefs<\/em>, with Chris Rodda combining criticism<\/a> of the transgender comments with this quote from Calvert’s Facebook page:<\/p>\n \u201cProgressive Christianity is not progressive at all. It is a regression to the Garden of Eden when the serpent questioned \u2018Did God actually say\u2026\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The MRFF’s Mikey Weinstein called Calvert’s characterization of Progressive Christianity<\/p>\n absolutely repulsive, illicit bigotry and pervasive prejudice [and] malicious libel.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n However, Calvert’s comments on Progressive Christianity were on theology,<\/em> not people, and they are entirely consistent with the theology of mainstream Christianity today. (In fact, the idea of connecting Progressive Christianity to the serpent in the Garden isn’t even original.) As discussed, making such a theological statement is an explicitly protected<\/em> expression of faith, even within the military. Weinstein’s efforts to ride the coattails of the Military Times Facebook post with a larger issue maligning conservative Christianity writ large falls flat. (The former Air Force lawyer also apparently needs to look up the definition of “libel.”)<\/p>\n Somewhat speaking to Chaplain Calvert’s point, the greatest irony is that those who have been most vocal in demanding that the Nation surrender to \u201cscience\u201d over the past year are now turning a blind eye to the science of biology.<\/p>\n You can\u2019t walk into a grocery store without a mask \u201cbecause science,\u201d but a man can require the government to treat him like a woman \u201cbecause\u2026\u201d ?<\/p>\n Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.<\/p>\n Isaiah 5:20<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/gdf4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/gdf2.jpg\")
Those policies acknowledge the mental and hormonal issues associated with tinkering with biology.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n