Skip to main content

The Military's Un-Christian Chaplains

The Washington Post reports on the views of military chaplains about the repeal of DADT. The official Pentagon report includes one of the most depressing sentences in the history of the world:
"'In the course of our review, we heard some chaplains condemn in the strongest possible terms homosexuality as a sin and an abomination, and inform us that they would refuse to in any way support, comfort, or assist someone they knew to be homosexual,' the report stated. 'In equally strong terms, other chaplains, including those who also believe homosexuality is a sin, informed us that 'we are all sinners,' and that it is a chaplain's duty to care for all Service members.'"

It doesn't bother me that Christian chaplains believe homosexuality is a sin, although I disagree: that's to be expected. But I'm horrified at the attitudes of those who would refuse to show Christian love to gay servicemembers -- and gratified for the example of those chaplains who would provide assistance despite seeing homosexuality as a sin. The Christ of the Bible hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, and railed against Pharisees who sneered at people who didn't share their moral rectitude. I'm not a Christian anymore, but I know which group of chaplains more clearly emulates the man they supposedly worship.

That said, I really hope we're not going to be in the business of letting chaplains set military policy, no matter which policy they favor.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Don't think this is actually true. Every chaplain signs a document saying they realize the military is a pluralistic environment and they will provide care to all regardless of what they believe. In 22 years of being a chaplain, never heard anyone with that opinion. This is only an inflamatory statement.

Active Duty Chaplain
Joel said…
Active Duty Chaplain:

Appreciate your service. But are you suggesting the Pentagon is lying about its chaplain corps? Because that quote above is taken directly from the Pentagon report.

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…