It's the chaplains. The men of God.
"There is very clearly a concern out there by chaplains, that they would somehow be treated adversely if they held or espoused religious views that were contrary to the government's view if the law is repealed."Big surprise. According to this CNN report, we once again find that the religious leaders, the ones who are supposed to be spreading God's word of infinite love, tolerance and acceptance, and spreading Jesus' message of forgiveness, are instead leading the charge in the battle against gay rights. They're at the forefront of intolerance and discrimination.
–General Carter Ham, Director of Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"We believe that normalizing homosexual conduct in the armed forces will pose a significant threat to chaplains' and service members' religious liberty."Take careful note of how this is worded. The chaplains don't say, "repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell," or "allowing homosexuals to serve openly." No, they deliberately use the inflammatory phrase, "normalizing homosexual conduct." The word "normalize" makes it clear that homosexuality is abnormal, a perversion, and "conduct" makes it seem like it's a choice of lifestyle, that gays and lesbians are merely conducting themselves in an abnormal way.
– letter from chaplain's group to President Obama
"The reason we were against the repeal is simply because of moral issues. ... I fear that down the road, knowing the other agenda items that are on the plate of those who are promoting the homosexual lifestyle ... a chaplain would be restricted from proclaiming their faith tenets."Once again, note the use of "homosexual lifestyle," as if it's merely a choice like the decision to become a vegetarian.
– Army Chaplain Douglas Lee (ret.)
We're supposed to be a secular nation where religion has no place in government and vice versa. But in reality, the anti-homosexual policies of the United States Armed Forces are nothing more than religious discrimination that's been injected into our government by intolerant, homophobic Christians. DADT is an embarrassing blemish on the government's policies for our wonderful armed forces, and it's religion's fault.
America's younger generation is trying to leave homophobia behind.
(P.S. About the title ... Yes, I know Christians claim to "love the sinner, hate the sin." Keep it to yourself. I don't buy it. Nobody who felt true love for another human being would deny that person love and happiness.)
del.icio.us
reddit
StumbleUpon
Posts
Also, homosexual conduct (as distinguished from orientation) most assuredly is a choice, just as heterosexual conduct is.
ReplyDeleteAnd finally, celibacy is not the antithesis of love and happiness. Gay Christians are no more denied love and happiness than are priests, or for that matter straight Christians who're attracted to prostitutes. There are other kinds of love than sex.
ReplyDeleteOpposing DADT repeal is hating the gays. Saying one is gay while in the military isn't some form of homosexual conduct. Straight people in the military are committing religious transgressions all the time, but the chaplains focus on the gay people because they're homophobic assholes much like you, Nathan... Also, how noble of you to offer gay people the great privilege of permanent chastity, truly you are a saint.
ReplyDeleteI fully support freedom for gays to serve openly in the military and in any other public capacity. I just decline to call my parents hateful for disagreeing. Does that make me a homophobic asshole?
ReplyDeleteAll Christians, including but not limited to gays, are called to restrain natural inclinations. Sometimes very powerful ones. Many people would say that giving up fornication or adultery denies them "love and happiness." Others believe they cannot be happy without amassing wealth. Like all Christians, gay Christians must reject part of who they are in order to become all they can be. So yes, I would say that celibacy is a legitimate option. And many people, not just gays, give up a part of themselves for Christ. (Indeed, anyone who doesn't is not practicing Christianity.)
I absolutely don't want the government to impose Christian values on soldiers or anyone else in America. But you make it sound like it is wrong to hold those values--like holding them is intrinsically hateful. That is just as authoritarian as anything you accuse us of.
Christianity is often misunderstood on this issue, not least because of the behavior of Christians. Gays are offended because we think there is something wrong with them. And so we do, but I hope it helps that we think there is something wrong with everyone else, including ourselves, too. Everyone has strong natural inclinations that are at odds with God's commands. The natural inclination to homosexual orientation isn't worse than all the other things that come naturally to fallen humans, but neither is it sacrosanct.
Universities these days assume that anything which comes naturally and doesn't harm others must be morally acceptable, and (rightly) lampoon Christians for saying homosexuality is unnatural. But that first assumption is hard to defend. At the least, one need not be hate-filled to reject it.
Nathan -- You wrote, " But you make it sound like it is wrong to hold those values--like holding them is intrinsically hateful." No, it doesn't merely sound hateful. It IS hateful because it directly causes harm to innocent people, and does absolutely nothing good for society. Many Christian "morals" are immoral in my opinion; see my recent blog Silly Christian Morals.
ReplyDeleteAnd Christianity isn't "misunderstood" as you say. I understand it perfectly, and I believe it has many serious flaws, both in its tenets and in the behavior of its adherents.
Exactly what innocent people are directly harmed by my belief that homosexual conduct (or heterosexual activity outside of marriage, or any number of other choices) is immoral? I understand people could be harmed by efforts to force others to act how I think they should, but my belief is not hateful.
ReplyDeleteIf thinking that someone else was doing something wrong were hateful, then your comments toward me would have to be considered hateful, even though they are entirely polite and do me no harm.