When standing up means falling down
FULL LETTER
Recently, 40 retired Military Chaplains wrote the above letter to the President voicing their concerns over the repeal of DADT in the US. Their primary concerns are the "normalizing of homosexuality in the armed forces", and protecting the religious freedom of current chaplains to speak out against homosexuality according to their beliefs.
I can at least sympathize with these individuals insofar that I also wouldn't want to compromise my morals for the government or any other ruling body. I also support everyone's right to practice and believe whatever religion they choose, and I believe in everyone's right to freedom of speech. As such, no matter how much I deplore these beliefs and their effects on people, I would not bar anyone from speaking them.
The disconnect arises on the subject of morality. I consider discrimination against homosexuals, religious or otherwise, equivalent in every way and just as reprehensible as racism, misogyny, and all other forms of prejudice. Freedom of speech and religion in no way implies social endorsement, and society should not approve of these hateful beliefs.
When civil/human liberties come in conflict with freedom of religion it is clear that to maintain later it can never supersede the former. To do so would be to replace FoR with FoR... so long as it doesn't disagree with this other religion first. That is, of course, not true FoR, and the beginnings of a theocracy.
It is my feeling that military chaplains can and do provide an important role in our armed forces. Soldiers are no doubt under unimaginable strain, and faced with some of the most difficult decisions and actions to bear. As such, we owe it to them to provide any and all means necessary to ease that burden, including spiritual and religious guidance and comfort if it is desired. However, these chaplains serve the soldiers, and not the other way around as they seem to believe. Their presence is not indicative of the right to religious freedom, but yet another resource for those desiring it. As such, though it is important that these individuals be allowed to perform their duties, it cannot come at the cost of rights for the soldiers or the detriment of the armed forces as a whole (which not repealing DADT certainly is.)
I also wanted to point out the fact that the letter describes homosexuality as "harmful and sinful." This is noteworthy for two reasons. The first is that homosexuality is not harmful, and by saying this it helps to clearly show the prejudice of those writing letter. The second is that "harm" falls outside of the realm of religious freedom for military chaplains, and as such should be disregarded entirely, or relegated to a different letter of concern.
Moving forward, it is important that we protect the rights of chaplains and allow them to continue serving our soldiers, but the repeal of DADT supersedes their religious concerns and should occur.
Recently, 40 retired Military Chaplains wrote the above letter to the President voicing their concerns over the repeal of DADT in the US. Their primary concerns are the "normalizing of homosexuality in the armed forces", and protecting the religious freedom of current chaplains to speak out against homosexuality according to their beliefs.
I can at least sympathize with these individuals insofar that I also wouldn't want to compromise my morals for the government or any other ruling body. I also support everyone's right to practice and believe whatever religion they choose, and I believe in everyone's right to freedom of speech. As such, no matter how much I deplore these beliefs and their effects on people, I would not bar anyone from speaking them.
The disconnect arises on the subject of morality. I consider discrimination against homosexuals, religious or otherwise, equivalent in every way and just as reprehensible as racism, misogyny, and all other forms of prejudice. Freedom of speech and religion in no way implies social endorsement, and society should not approve of these hateful beliefs.
When civil/human liberties come in conflict with freedom of religion it is clear that to maintain later it can never supersede the former. To do so would be to replace FoR with FoR... so long as it doesn't disagree with this other religion first. That is, of course, not true FoR, and the beginnings of a theocracy.
It is my feeling that military chaplains can and do provide an important role in our armed forces. Soldiers are no doubt under unimaginable strain, and faced with some of the most difficult decisions and actions to bear. As such, we owe it to them to provide any and all means necessary to ease that burden, including spiritual and religious guidance and comfort if it is desired. However, these chaplains serve the soldiers, and not the other way around as they seem to believe. Their presence is not indicative of the right to religious freedom, but yet another resource for those desiring it. As such, though it is important that these individuals be allowed to perform their duties, it cannot come at the cost of rights for the soldiers or the detriment of the armed forces as a whole (which not repealing DADT certainly is.)
I also wanted to point out the fact that the letter describes homosexuality as "harmful and sinful." This is noteworthy for two reasons. The first is that homosexuality is not harmful, and by saying this it helps to clearly show the prejudice of those writing letter. The second is that "harm" falls outside of the realm of religious freedom for military chaplains, and as such should be disregarded entirely, or relegated to a different letter of concern.
Moving forward, it is important that we protect the rights of chaplains and allow them to continue serving our soldiers, but the repeal of DADT supersedes their religious concerns and should occur.