As we’ve discussed repeatedly here (and I really mean repeatedly), repealing the law against open homosexual behavior in the military will almost certainly harm religious liberty for chaplains and service members, especially since Congress has refused to include an exemption for religious liberty in any of its repeal efforts.

But, as the Catholic Archbishop for the Military Diocese, Timothy Broglio, recently pointed out, other fundamental concerns are also at stake.  Namely, the moral voice of the military is in danger of being silenced at a time when its guidance is most in need to an institution which—because it must daily make life-or-death decisions—requires a trustworthy moral compass.

Shutting the mouths of chaplains—who not only provide religious services and counseling, but also regularly teach courses in ethics to military leaders and are specially tasked to provide ethical gudiance to commanders of their units—sends a message that their guidance isn’t trustworthy in the real world of the military.  As a fighter pilot I was talking to recently pointed out, this will be extremely difficult for young Service members trying to come to grips with the morality of war and their place in it.

Even in a best-case scenario following repeal, where chaplains are allowed some small freedom to, for instance, preach about their beliefs on sexual ethics within the confines of a chapel, reliance on the military’s most-sought moral guide—the chaplaincy—will still be irreparably damaged.  A soldier listening to his spiritual chain of command in chapel services will hear one thing, but outside the chapel will to be ordered by his military chain of command to do the opposite.  This cannot help but to create a deep impression in such a soldier’s mind: religion is a curiousity for non-serious matters, but has no application to how the job is done. 

This bleak best-case scenario would not last long.  The military cannot become divided against itself and remain an effective fighting force.  And there’s no question who will lose the battle between chaplains and military command.  Thus, chaplains who believe in something more permanent than the whims of shifting political majorities will find themselves increasingly marginalized and, ultimately, discharged.

And then a huge swath of Service members will find themselves without chaplains who share their faith to turn to for moral guidance in these war-torn days which try soldiers’ souls. 

Is that a sacrifice worth making for political correctness?

___________________________________________________________

If you’re a military chaplain, active or retired, and are interested in becoming involved in this issue or signing the Chaplains Letter, please contact us with your information.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

My generation (I graduated high school in 1984) seems to get the biblical teaching about mercy and forgiveness. After all, we willingly forgave Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions in the Oval Office with very few questions asked. But we often miss the fact that Christ also taught observance of the law and justice. For instance, He admonished religious leaders to consider their own sin before stoning the woman caught in the very act of adultery, but instructed the woman to go and sin no more.

Perhaps this inability to balance justice and mercy, as Micah 6:8 instructs, explains the failure of many church-going Christians (at least one survey says “most”) to understand why normalizing homosexual behavior in the military is unwise. But even if we put aside the direct effect this rejection of biblical morality will have on our nation’s moral health, the indirect effects on religious freedom are alarming.

In a series of blogs, ADF attorney Daniel Blomberg is doing an excellent job of pointing out how the repeal of the current so called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law (often referred to as “DADT”) is going to muzzle our military chaplains. Forcing the military to condone homosexual behavior will necessarily restrict religious freedom by limiting the ability of military chaplains to preach and provide counsel to service members about the dangers of this sin.

If you think this restraint on religious freedom will be confined to the military, you’re wrong. We’re already seeing the conflict between the radical homosexual agenda and religious freedom in the civilian context. An April 28, 2010 letter from numerous chaplains opposed to repealing the ban on homosexual behavior in the military catalogues numerous examples: prison chaplains disciplined for not permiting homosexuals to lead their services, religious student groups restricted for not allowing homosexual leaders, businesses fined for not participating in same-sex “marriage” ceremonies, and churches penalized for not making their facilities available for a same-sex relationship commitment ceremony. More importantly, giving ground on DADT will make it extremely difficult to hold the line protecting marriage. Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act will undoubtedly be next.

If we don’t rein in this mad dash for mandated acceptance of homosexual behavior, it’s just a matter of time before government officials come after pastors for disseminating “hate speech,” when all they’re doing is preaching biblical morality. It’s already occurring in Europe and evidence of it heading our way can be seen in Canada.

As Dave Welch recently pointed out in his article, pastors have long had the right and obligation to speak up on things like repeal of DADT. Exercising this right is the best way to avoid a future where protection for it is weakened, or eliminated altogether.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Already, veteran chaplains from numerous denominations–including Lutherans, Southern Baptists, and Presbyterians–have spoken out to express their concern that repealing the current law that protects the military from open homosexual behavior will, among other things, harm religious liberty.  Just yesterday, another major voice in the chaplaincy community, Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Catholic Church’s Military Diocese, added his voice in defense of the military’s current law.

His argument was made on two grounds: First, repeal cannot be allowed to limit the First Amendment rights and duties of chaplains in their ministry to Service members.  While those who practice homosexual behavior should receive “respect and treatment worthy of their human dignity,” “no restrictions or limitations on the teaching of Catholic morality can be accepted.  First Amendment rights regarding the free exercise of religion must be respected.”  Similarly, “Catholic chaplains must show compassion for persons with a homosexual orientation, but can never condone–even silently–homosexual behavior.”

Second, in what Archbishop Broglio describes as “a more fundamental” issue, repeal would harm the ability of the military to be an effective fighting force.  He reasons–correctly–that morality and “corresponding good moral decisions” are integral to “unit cohesion and the overall morale of troops and effectiveness of the mission.”  Thus, normalizing immoral behavior, like homosexuality, through military policy potentially would have an “enormous and overwhelming” effect on military readiness.  ”Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals or their living conditions to respond to merely political considerations is neither just nor prudent, especially for the armed forces at a time of war.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Stay tuned for more news of other religious leaders speaking out against repeal.

___________________________________________________________

If you’re a military chaplain, active or retired, and are interested in becoming involved in this issue or signing the Chaplains Letter, please contact us with your information.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

The battle over whether chaplains’ and Service members’ First Amendment rights to religious liberty will be sacrificed to make room for normalized homosexuality in the military is reaching a critical phase this week.  Despite strong warnings by the Pentagon that a premature rush for repeal should be rejected, the White House and some Congressional leaders are pushing forward with a “compromise” measure that will restrict religious liberty for soldiers in a way that no other federal law affects any other American.  The Senate Armed Services Committee is entering a closed session Wednesday morning to consider whether to sneak repeal of the current prohibition on homosexual behavior in the military into the yearly appropriations bill that funds the Armed Forces.  And the day after that, the House will be trying to do the same in open floor debate.  (An attempt to slide repeal into the appropriations bill while still in the House Armed Services Committee was firmly rejected by Committee Chair Ike Skelton, forcing proponents of repeal into some tricky maneuvering to get it heard on the House floor).

Thankfully, chaplaincy organizations are keeping up the fight.  Many of these organizations, which supply the brave men who make up the chaplaincy corps and provide them official endorsement so they can serve as military chaplains, have released strong statements against repeal.  The organizations that oppose repeal include the North American Mission Board (which is the endorsing organization for the Southern Baptist Convention), the Evangelical Free Church of America, Grace Church International, and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference.  While certain political leaders may be willing to saddle the military with this social experiment (while fighting two wars and facing the rising prospect of one in the Korean Peninsula), the veteran chaplains in these organizations who have spent decades counseling soldiers in need are not.  And they’re making their voices heard.

UPDATE 1: Chaplains across the country are speaking up today—and getting published in newspapers that serve large military communities.  Check out Col. Ron Crews’ op-ed in the Fayetteville Observer that was posted just this morning.

UPDATE 2: Veteran chaplains aren’t the only ones speaking out against the rush to repeal: the Chiefs of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines have just issued letters stating that premature repeal would harm the Armed Forces.  And a just-released poll shows that the majority of Americans agree this political push that ignores military input should be stopped.

___________________________________________________________

If you’re a military chaplain, active or retired, and are interested in becoming involved in this issue or signing the Chaplains Letter, please contact us with your information.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Last week, 3 retired chaplains expressed, in strong and occasionally harsh terms, their disagreement with 41 chaplains’ stance that normalizing homosexual conduct in the military threatened military religious liberty.  Out of respect for these 3 chaplains’ long service to our country, and out of an equal respect for the 41’s even longer service, I offer this response to their arguments.

First, the 3 argue that normalizing homosexual behavior in the military “would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on chaplains’ duties, roles and responsibilities.”  This is not credible, especially since the only support they offer are unidentified military regulations that protect religious liberty.  Against that argument stand two stark and incontrovertible facts: (1) Military regulations, no matter how protective—and it is questionable how protective they actually are—have no power against a statute.  If Congress passes a law demanding that homosexual behavior be treated with the same deference as race or gender, that law will trump military regulations.  And the only bills currently before Congress do exactly that, without a shred of protection for religious liberties.  (2) Nationwide, where sexual orientation protections have become law, they have almost uniformly been accompanied by intolerant attacks on religious liberty.  The 41 chaplains documented some glaring examples of this phenomenon in their letter.  The 3 chaplains failed to respond to these examples.  If the 3 chaplains are serious about protecting religious liberty, they should take a long, hard look at the type of religious persecution such non-discrimination laws have engendered.

Nor are the 41 alone in their concerns.  A recent editorial written by a professor at the Army War College noted that religious liberty problems were among the “significant issues” raised by normalizing homosexual behavior in the military.  Further, numerous endorsing organizations—the entities upon which the military relies for their supply of chaplains—have voiced similar concerns.

Second, in a seeming contradiction to their assurances that normalizing homosexual behavior “would have absolutely no effect whatsoever” on chaplains, the 3 chaplains write that “[i]f federal law bars discrimination against gays in the military, then all service members, regardless of their faith, must abide by the rule of law.”  The 3 cannot have it both ways—they cannot try to cast the 41 as paranoid for raising the concern that normalizing homosexual behavior will mean minimizing religious belief while simultaneously telling them to check their religious beliefs at the door.

To support their argument that the homosexual agenda should override chaplains’ and Service members’ consciences, the 3 say that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause protects religious freedom only “until it violates the law.”  But the First Amendment is the law.  To the extent that it protects the free exercise of religion, it does so vigorously.  An anti-discrimination law does not trump the First Amendment, particularly not one foisted upon the military to advance a political agenda that is completely unconnected with the military’s purpose.  Before accusing the 41 chaplains of failing to “honor the Constitution,” especially given that many of the 41 are men who have placed themselves in harm’s way to defend that Constitution, the 3 should get a better handle on what they’re talking about.

This leads to the third point.  While the First Amendment may ultimately be found by courts to protect chaplains and Service members from the dangers that the 41 chaplains identify, such a holding would only come after long, arduous, and disruptive litigation.  And the timing couldn’t be worse.  “We’re a nation at war.  We’re deploying our warriors repeatedly.  They’re separated from their family, home, loved ones,” says Chaplain (BG) David Cyr, Air Force deputy chief of chaplains.  “They turn to their chaplains for help.”   In fact, Service members are increasingly seeking chaplains’ counsel, particularly in the areas that stand to be most harmed by normalized homosexuality, spiritual/ethical concerns and family issues.  It is precisely because chaplains are so necessary to Service members that the military must be careful to refrain from muzzling chaplains in the name of political correctness.  Yet not once in their arguments do the 3 show why disruption of the chaplaincy—an institution that has served faithfully since George Washington’s leadership of the Continental Army—is helpful in fulfilling the military’s mission to protect American liberty through American strength.  (In fact, this is a flaw with the entire political push to normalize homosexuality in the military: it has not been shown how it will contribute to the military mission.  Even proponents of the change, like Admiral Mullen, admit that the change would disrupt our Armed Forces; how exactly it will help is not clear.  Notably, President Obama’s own Justice Department recently filed documents in federal court admitting that the current ban on open homosexual conduct strengthens national security.)

What’s especially puzzling is that the 3 chaplains don’t even acknowledge that the 41 identified a path that would help avoid this otherwise-inevitable conflict if current law is repealed: creating statutory protections for religious belief.  But that entire avenue is ignored, and instead the 3 revert to talking points about “bigots” clinging to “archaic” beliefs on sexuality, an uncharitable description of not only the 41, but also the numerous Service members and Americans who share those beliefs.  While such comments may impress the readership of the Huffington Post, they do nothing to resolve what should be a central concern for the 3, even if they disagree with the 41: protecting religious liberty in the military.  Notably, though, a lack of concern for religious liberty isn’t restricted to the 3 chaplains, for neither of the bills pending before Congress even address the issue.  By contrast, most laws elevating homosexual behavior to a protected status—like the misbegotten “hate crimes” law of recent vintage—have at least had the wisdom to include statutory exemptions for religious liberty.  And, as the 41 chaplains argue, the need for such an exemption would be even more acute in the military setting—which makes its absence all the more disturbing.

Fourth, the 3 chaplains argue that the chaplaincy’s mission is to protect the free exercise of religion for Service members, ministering to the religious beliefs of every Soldier, Airman, Sailor, or Marine regardless of whether they share those beliefs.  On this point, at least, the 41 are in full agreement, for they said the same things in their letter.  But it does not follow, as the 3 insist that it does, that chaplains must abandon their own beliefs to meet this requirement.  The Army explains this distinction under the rubric “Provide and Perform.”  A chaplain is duty-bound to provide for the religious needs of every Service member.  If a Hindu soldier asks a Christian chaplain for incense for a Hindu ceremony, the chaplain will cheerfully and promptly provide what he needs.  Similarly, if the Hindu soldier requests moral counseling, the Christian chaplain will happily fulfill that need.  But if the soldier requests that the chaplain perform a Hindu ceremony or give Hindu spiritual counsel, the chaplain is duty-bound—and conscience-bound—to decline.  In fact, a chaplain who violates the beliefs of his endorsing church by performing the ecclesiastical functions of other religions jeopardizes his status as a chaplain.

Further, if chaplains are muzzled by political correctness, they will be unable to support the free exercise of religion for many Service members whose beliefs don’t coincide with a new military religious doctrine on sexual ethics.  And thus the chaplaincy’s central purpose will have been sacrificed.  Unfortunately, the 3 chaplains seem quite comfortable with this result, as they argue the 41’s theology should only be permissible “until it infringes on the rights of others who adhere to a more inclusive and affirming [i.e., the 3 chaplains’] spirituality.”  That is, the 3 believe their religious beliefs should be trump all others, even if that means sacrificing the purpose of the chaplaincy corps and Service members’ free exercise rights.  It’s worth noting that this result—the establishing of required military religious beliefs—was predicted by the 41 in their letter; the 3 have proved that point.

Another prediction of the 41 that the 3 have shown accurate is that normalizing homosexuality will mean marginalizing religious belief.  Already, simply for speaking up in favor of current law from the perspective of traditional Christian ethics, the 3 chaplains repeatedly characterize those fairly popular beliefs as “archaic” “bigotry” comparable to racism and defending stoning children to death.  And they go on to say that the military will be best served if this “bigotry” is excised from the ranks.

If that’s how orthodox Christian belief is treated for defending current law, just imagine what will happen if the law is changed.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch