ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

Last September, sixty-six veteran military chaplains wrote to President Obama, telling him in plain terms that his plan to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would “threaten the religious liberty of chaplains and Service members.” 

These are sixty-six remarkable men—representing centuries of experience. Many had attained high rank; some served in combat; and several bear the scars of combat wounds. All knew that the mission-critical chaplaincy, which provides faith leaders for fellow believers and serves as counselors and friends to all service members, was in peril.

Specifically, the chaplains knew that if the President succeeded in forcing bisexual and homosexual behavior into the military—where it would be treated as an official moral norm—that chaplains would “confront a profoundly moral choice: whether they are to obey God or to obey men.”

The good news is that, even after a smiling President signed the law in December, it cannot be fully effective until several steps are taken—including a certification by senior military leaders that endorsing bisexual and homosexual behavior will have no impact on military readiness.  And that won’t happen before the newly elected House of Representatives can hold hearings on the impacts of eliminating DADT.

We don’t know how that will play out—but it may be that the legislative effort may fail to win the day for the homosexual activists. But, they have a plan B—sue in federal court to strike down the DADT policy.

That is why ADF and its allied attorneys just filed a “friend of the court” brief in the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America case, to inform the court that changing the law will risk the religious freedom of chaplains and service members.  This case, which is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is a direct attack on the law which prohibits open homosexual behavior in the military.

Quoting from the Manhattan Declaration, the brief pointed out that many military chaplains have affirmed that they will not “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships…or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

That stark statement foreshadows open conflict: a military that endorses open homosexual and bisexual behavior can scarcely tolerate chapels on base where homosexual and bisexual behavior revealed to be a grave moral disorder. 

Perhaps that is why military trainers are already telling active duty chaplains that “if they are “unable to reconcile repeal of DADT” with their Christian faith, then they “may request voluntary separation….”  Christians, go home.

Of course, the trainers also talk about how religious liberty will be protected—but that is a flimsy defense, when we see how Christian prison chaplains have been forced to use worship leaders who openly practiced homosexual behavior, and how Christian counselors have been disciplined when they expressed moral reservations about affirming a same-sex relationship.

The moral conflict which was only a warning a few months ago is, unfortunately, becoming reality.  If it does come to pass that DADT fully falls, the conflict will intensify.  But so, too, will the resolve of ADF, its allies, and the chaplains it represents, to defend the God-given, constitutionally guaranteed right of a Christian chaplain to be both a chaplain…and a Christian.

---

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

Billy Graham.  Franklin Graham.  The Graham name itself is almost synonymous with religion in America. In fact, it was just recentlythat President Obama visited the Grahams in North Carolina to pray and swap old Chicago stories.  In so doing, President Obama became the twelfth president to seek God’s counsel with the Reverend Graham.  Bill Burton, White House spokesman, spoke fondly of the family in saying “Rev. Graham has obviously been an important spiritual leader for past presidents and for the American people for decades.  He’s a real treasure for our country.”

So  it was no surprise that Franklin Graham was asked to participate in the National Day of Prayer events at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol building this year.  This announcement should have been received with the same shock as learning that Charlton Heston owned a gun. But apparently, cats were chasing dogs, politicians shunned babies and Ann Coulter went on a date with Keith Olbermann as the unthinkable happened.  The Pentagon dis-invited Franklin Graham from its National Prayer Day observances. Why would Pentagon officials boot Franklin, when the Commander-in-Chief was praying with his father Billy just a few days earlier?

The reason is because Islamic groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that the Pentagon rescind its offer to Rev. Graham.  You see, a Muslim organization was offended that a Christian believed Jesus is the only way to heaven.  Yes, Franklin Graham believes that Jesus is the only way to heaven - just like his father.  But don’t most – if not all – religions hold exclusive beliefs about their truth claims at some level?  Tolerating differing religious beliefs is what the First Amendment is all about. America was built on religious freedom for all, and specifically the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.  To exclude Franklin Graham from a public observance because of his orthodox Christian beliefs is the height of a perverted politically correct agenda.  Let the the theologians do the debating, and let generals fight the wars, not censor pastors, imams, or any other religious leaders.

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, 41 veteran chaplains released a letter enumerating the many and serious religious liberty concerns with the Obama Administration’s plans to normalize homosexual behavior in the armed forces.  Almost immediately, a chorus of  critics responded, branding the carefully crafted letter of the chaplains—who have a long and distinguished record of service in the all branches of the armed forces—as “insulting” and “illogical.”

Perhaps such criticisms were made before the critics had taken the time to read the prayerfully considered and carefully researched letter that the chaplains released.  Or the three accompanying personal letters written by a few of the signatories briefly outlining what it said.  More charitably, perhaps the critics simply don’t understand the chaplains’ letter.  Either way, it’s important to ensure no one is misled by the criticisms.

For starters, the letter is not an attempt to protect squeamish Christians from having to deal with people who disagree with them on sexual morality.  That should have been clear just by reading the biographies of the signatories included at the end of the letter.  These are men who have defended American liberties in almost every major modern conflict, from Vietnam to Afghanistan.  They’ve faced sniper’s bullets and terrorist IED’s, so they’re not afraid of ministering to people with whom they disagree.  The chaplains said as much in their letter:

“To clarify, we are not saying that active-duty chaplains who share our beliefs would be unwilling to minister to those who engage in homosexual behavior.  To the contrary, we believe that God loves everyone, that He desires that everyone should hear of and receive the Truth, and that He calls us to speak that Truth.”

The chaplains, and those who share their beliefs, are willing to minister to whoever needs their ministry, including individuals who engage in homosexual conduct.  They’re just not willing to allow political correctness to dictate the terms of their ministry.  Politicizing the military may be acceptable to those who are willing to place their agenda over the First Amendment, but chaplains will not allow the Good News to become a politically-correct gospel.

Second, some have suggested that normalizing homosexual behavior won’t hurt religious liberty because the military hasn’t forced chaplains to accept an official doctrine on moral issues like abortion, spousal abuse, or gambling.  This rejoinder, though, lacks both factual accuracy and logical coherence.  Factually, the military did try to censor chaplains on one side of the abortion debate during the partial-birth abortion battle at the behest of the Clinton administration.  (The letter addressed exactly this troubling bit of history in footnotes 7 and 16.)  And logically, the current push to normalize homosexual behavior will make it a special issue set apart from the concerns like domestic violence in at least two ways. 

First, the military currently agrees with the chaplaincy that domestic abuse is bad; in fact, the Uniform Code of Military Justice outlaws such assault.  But in the case of normalizing homosexual behavior, the military’s moral code will be at direct odds with that of many of its chaplains.  Second, no one is attempting to make domestic abuse a special class of protected behavior against which discrimination is banned.  But as the chaplains point out in the first paragraph of their letter, the current push to repeal the military prohibition on open homosexual conduct will give such conduct the protections enjoyed for race and gender - that is, discriminating on the basis of homosexual behavior will be forbidden.

While proponents of these special protections (and they are many, since the pending legislation in both the House and Senate is well-supported by the Left) may want to hide their harm to religious liberty, the carnage is obvious from how similar laws have been enforced in civil society.  The chaplains made that clear on page 4 of their letter, citing example after example of how such “non-discrimination” laws have been used to attack religious liberty. 

In an attempt to hide the coming danger, Interfaith Alliance suggests that the chaplains’ concerns are overblown because “people can disagree on issues and still serve together.”  But such rosy predictions—which weren’t backed by a shred of evidence—simply ignores the predicament of people like Julea Ward, a top-level graduate student, represented by the Alliance Defense Fund in a lawsuit, who was kicked out of her counseling program at a government school just a month from graduation because her religious beliefs prevented her from affirming homosexual behavior.  Or of Marcia Walden, also represented by ADF, who was fired at the behest of a federal government entity for simply referring a client requesting counsel on a same-sex sexual relationship to another counselor.   Or people like William Akridge, a prison chaplain who was formally reprimanded because he wouldn’t allow an inmate who openly claimed to be “gay” to lead the choir. Or of innumerable other situations where religious liberty has been assaulted in order to protect homosexual conduct. 

And in the context of the military, where discipline is absolutely necessary and dissent is rarely allowed, these types of “government policy versus religious freedom” battles are going to be brutal.  Those who make the “live and let live” argument, then, are either not paying attention or are purposefully hiding the truth.

Of course, that a conflict exists is no surprise to those who are really paying attention on either side of the issue.  As a senior Obama administration official has said, the conflict between religious liberty and homosexual conduct is a “zero sum game” where one side must lose.  (Yes, this is in the letter, too.  Check out footnote 14.  She went on to say that “we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity.”) Based on this, it’s a serious question whether this administration prefers homosexual conduct to time-honored First Amendment rights.  Unfortunately, the answer isn’t as obvious as it should be, especially given the administration’s weak record defending religious liberty elsewhere.

If an argument is strong, critics will often reframe the issue as something that can be attacked more easily. Here, that’s what critics of the 41 chaplains have done. And that says a lot about how right the 41 chaplains are.

________________________________________________________________________

This post also appears on townhall.com.

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