Saturday, October 30, 2010

DADT is dead #6

Silly reason #39 not to repeal DADT: "Freedom of religion."

A group of 65 retired military chaplains has sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates presenting what they consider an insurmountable problem if DADT is repealed. For some chaplains it will become "impossible to serve both God and the military."
If a chaplain preaches against homosexuality, he could be considered a bigot.
Well, yes, of course. How is that different from a Catholic priest telling a woman that her abortion is a mortal sin? Should the military kick out anyone who has an abortion -- or might have an abortion, both men and women -- in order not to pose priests with a dilemma?

How do you minister in a pastoral way to someone who does not share your religious beliefs? That should have been covered in Pastoral Care 101. Is their military mission to convert everyone to their faith -- or is it to provide pastoral care to all the troops and their families? And, if you can't do that, should you be a military chaplain?

I think this may be territory they might rather not open up. If they raise "freedom of religion" as an issue (as in their right to be bigots), then what about "separation of church and state?" And why do we provide military chaplains anyway? What's the government doing in the business of having sectarian clergy on the payroll if they think they're there "to save souls" according to their own sectarian beliefs?

Even if that can be justified, then how do you justify allowing them to preach their own individual brand of religion with all the attendant and various conflicting proscriptions that might run counter to official policy and regulations?

It's both a swamp and a slippery slope. These 65 retirees are worried some of their younger colleagues might have to leave the military. They should be worried that the whole concept of military chaplains could be called into question.

Ralph

4 comments:

  1. This doesn't exactly fit in with your topic Ralph, although it deals with denial of an HIV/AIDS connection.

    So feel free to delete this. But it's an outrageous position by Rand Paul and I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere.
    richard

    http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/does-rand-paul-believe-obama-hypnotized-jews/

    ReplyDelete
  2. The organization that this refers to that Paul supposedly is a member of is the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. From its web site, their stated purpose is: "fighting against government and insurance company control of medicine."

    More telling is this statement that they obviously point to with pride:

    "When 99% of national groups - including the AMA and virtually every specialty association - sold out the profession for a "seat at the table" in Washington D.C. this year, only AAPS stood firm in its opposition to more government meddling in your practice."

    So -- by definition they're way out on the fringes of even medical organizations. You can well imagine that they attract all the extremists among the profession.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And there's a good chance their member, Rand Paul, will be elected in Kentucky.
    richard

    ReplyDelete
  4. I doubt seriously that physician Rand Paul actually believes that Obama hypnotized the Jews with his televised speeches. He's extreme in his political views and his ideas about the role of government, but I don't think he is crazy.

    The link you provided says that the organization published this article on its web site; and we know that Rand Paul is a member of the organization. But there is no evidence that he personally believes that or even that he read the article.

    I don't think every member of an organization needs to be held accountable for what every other member says, or even what the web site publishes.

    We don't need to invoke such wild tales and assumptions about what Paul believes, however, to be strongly opposed to his being in the senate. His votes will be bad enough -- if he wins.

    I'm still not convinced. His opponent is a very capable, attractive, articulate candidate, the state's Attorney General with a good record. I know, it's Kentucky; but let's wait and see. The polls are pretty close.

    ReplyDelete