Posted on 01/05/2013 2:49:15 PM PST by NYer
WASHINGTON, D.C.,January 13, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Provisions that protect the conscience rights of military chaplains that were included in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are “unnecessary and ill-advised” said President Obama in a signing statement this week.
Section 533 of the defense bill was crafted in response to fears that the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy under the Obama administration would lead to reprisals against chaplains who have moral objections to the homosexual lifestyle, or who refuse to perform same-sex “weddings.”
That section says that no member of the armed forces may “require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain.”
It also says that they may not “discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain” for refusing to perform the ceremonies.
The language was introduced by former Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri.
While the president signed the bill with the conscience protections intact, he issued a signing statement criticizing them.
“The military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members,” Obama wrote, adding that his administration would make sure that implementing the provisions does not lead to any “discriminatory actions.”
“My administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that,” he said.
In May of last year, Obama endorsed gay “marriage” after years of claiming to be in support of traditional marriage.
In a statement following the signing of the defense bill, the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty called on President Obama and senior Department of Defense leaders to honor the religious liberty protections passed in the bill.
“Chaplains should be able to stand by their faith traditions and honor their commitment to God’s Word,” said Chaplain (COL) Ron Crews, USAR retired, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. “That’s a freedom that Congress sought to protect, and the president is not at liberty to disregard the law.”
Crews pointed out that several chaplains have already been approached about having same-sex services in military chapels.
“Every member of our armed forces should be able to serve without surrendering their beliefs,” he said.
Congress passed the conscience protection provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act with overwhelming bipartisan support.
In May 2008, while campaigning for office, President Obama had promised that he would not issue “signing statements” when signing bills.
“I disagree with that [issuing signing statements],” he said. “I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States – we’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”
For any of you with children or grandchildren serving in the military.
The Post points out 2 lies of Obama’s, and we can only wait for the Executive Order to be signed forcing Chaplains to marry gays or be tossed out. It is coming as sure as the sun rises in the East.
If it were unnecessary and ill advised, why did Obama even mention it.No It’s coming, probably before the year is out.
Barry knows best, he’s the bestest dictator, ever!!!
Jeez, does he EVER tell the truth???
What really meant to say was:
"I taught the g.d. constitution for 10 years. The constitution should be smashed in the most complete way possible, as soon as possible. When we get into power we will do every end-run around congress we can get away with."
Unnecessary and ill-advised? Unnecessary I could see (if it were true), but ill-advised? ILL-ADVISED to include a provision that chaplains can’t be forced to act against their conscience and religious freedom?
As for unnecessary - we only need to look to other recent Obama-approved laws, such as the one Hobby Lobby is fighting, to see that THAT isn’t true.
In five days we will fundamentally change the way Washington does things
Can’t this be applied if they try to force chaplains?
“What is CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLE?”
A conscientious scruple against taking an oath, serving as a juror in a capital case, doing military duty, or the like, is au objection or repugnance growing out of the fact that the person believes the thing demanded of him to be morally wrong, his conscience being the sole guide to his decision; it is thus distinguished from an “objection on principle,” which is dictated by the reason and judgment, rather than the moral sense, aud may relate only to the propriety or expediency of the thing in question. People v. Stewart, 7 Cal. 143
http://thelawdictionary.org/conscientious-scruple/
If this pretender “taught the Constitution for 10 years” why have none of his students come forward? Fraud to the bone. What an oaf.
“What is CONSCIENCE?”
The moral sense; the faculty of judging the moral qualities of actions, or of discriminating between right and wrong; particularly applied to one’s perception and judgment of the moral qualities of his own conduct, but in a wider sense, de CONSCIENCE 248 CONSENSUS TOLLIT ERROREM noting a similar application of the standards of morality to the acts of others. In law, especially the moral rule which retinites probity, justice, and honest dealing between man and man, as when we say that a bargain is “against conscience” or “unconscionable,” or that the price paid for property at a forced sale was so inadequate as to “shock the conscience.” This is also the meaning of the term as applied to the jurisdiction and principles of decision of courts of chancery, as in saving that such a court is a “court of conscience,” that it proceeds “according to conscience,” or that it has cognizance of “matters of conscience.” See 3 Bl. Comm. 47-56: People v. Stewart, 7 Cal. 143; Miller v. Miller, 187 Pa. 572, 41 Atl. 277
http://thelawdictionary.org/conscience/
At least he didn't lie :)
If you tell a lie often enough...
I’m a retired Army Chaplain. Already anecdoatal evidence is coming forward that Chaplains are not being protected.
"These are not the men of faith you should be listening to..."
Looks to me like Signing Statements, as a guide to executive agencies in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge manner, acts just like an EO.
“My administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that,”
This Signing Statement, given the above SS wording, is merely advance notice of following the DADT repeal rather than this law - he is deeming Section 533 unconstitutional, null and void.
Basically, he is applying the notion of line-item-veto, even though that has already been determined time and time again unconstitutional.
Once again, Ø shreds the Constitution. As he does every chance he gets.
one wonders if there will be a second Obama inauguration
“Jeez, does he EVER tell the truth???”
The only statement Obama ever made that was the truth ran chills through my bones. I think I like him better as a liar.
Remember when he said “ We are five days away from fundamentally-transforming America”?
I think what he meant to say is
It’s necessary and prudent,
due to the violent behavior of my administration against religion.
At least that’s what I heard.
Like anyone of us has ever believed the guy since day one....
I am currently wondering if there will be a third Obama inauguration. Nothing this Bozo does is legal. Its like having a felon aquit himself by writing a new law.
There is a Hell, justice will be served, forever.
According to the US Attorney and approved by Judge England at a hearing in CA this week the Constitution does not require the President to have a valid birth certificate, valid social security number nor valid selective service card. See OrlyTaitzEsq.com who replied it doesn’t require the President to have a pulse or brain activity either, but common sense requires a birth certificate which is not a forgery, a social security number not stolen, and a selective service card which is not a forgery. When the courts are corrupted, I see a civil war coming.
Provisions that protect the conscience rights of military chaplains that were included in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are "unnecessary and ill-advised" said President Obama in a signing statement this week. Section 533 of the defense bill was crafted in response to fears that the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy under the Obama administration would lead to reprisals against chaplains who have moral objections to the homosexual lifestyle, or who refuse to perform same-sex "weddings." That section says that no member of the armed forces may "require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain." It also says that they may not "discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain" for refusing to perform the ceremonies. The language was introduced by former Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri.
First he says it is unnecessary.
Then he says it is ill advised.
Why is it ill advised? Is that Obama’s signal that he will be angry when he makes the EO forcing CatholicChaplains to perform these ceremonies-—and he will—it’s just a matter of time.
I was a Navy chaplain for many years, and I can tell you that it is impossible to be a military chaplain and be faithful to traditional Christian beliefs and practices. If you’re a liberal from a liberal denomination, there will never be a conflict; however, if you try to practice traditional Christian beliefs in the military, you’ll never get promoted to a senior officer level. Most likely, you’ll never have the chance to be promoted. I could tell you stories about things that chaplains from my denomination were ordered to do that you find impossible to believe.
I would be really interested in hearing what you have to say, and what you had to do, if you ever feel like typing it out.
Liberals are trying to make all nations the same (ruled by socialists with their policies and of equal income levels and life styles) so that they can erase national differences (and constitutions) to institute globalism.
They want an unelected “North American Union” regional government over Mexico, Canada and the US. That is to be modeled after the Europeon Union. They are going to have the Middle East ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood (Islam demands wealth redistribution and total social and property control, too). They have a plan for doing the consolidation of power into regional government all over the world. Over the regional governments, the UN will tax and rule.
Conservatives and the constitution have blocked their plans for years. They are angry about that.
Acts 5:28-29
“Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I see several reasons why 0moslem is saying this. One, to drive good men and women from the military. Two, part of the same thing really - to stuff the military with immoral people with no consciences, homosexuals, Moslems, criminals and leftists who will do his bidding. Three, to generally weaken the military so it is no longer the best fighting force.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I see several reasons why 0moslem is saying this. One, to drive good men and women from the military. Two, part of the same thing really - to stuff the military with immoral people with no consciences, homosexuals, Moslems, criminals and leftists who will do his bidding. Three, to generally weaken the military so it is no longer the best fighting force.
Every time I hear or read something about this bastard I don’t know who I’m angrier at: him or all the dumb sh#ts that voted him back in office.
May the military chaplains remember the example of Thomas More in resisting dictates of leaders.
The first thing we had to deal with was an order that came from Adm White, who was then CNC, and said that we were no longer allowed to pray in the “Name of Jesus.” I had been asked by the family of a pilot, who had died in a crash, to conduct his funeral since they were Christian and members of my denomination. I got a call from a Rabbi senior chaplain insisting that he be included in the service. Mind you, this was a CHRISTIAN funeral service. It wasn’t some memorial service held in the base chapel. I told the Rabbi that this would in violation of the family’s wishes and against my denomination’s rules. He chewed my butt for about twenty minutes and told me that he would see to it that I would NEVER be promoted. That’s just two incidents. I could write a book.
Thank you for sharing. The name of Jesus is so powerful, this just reconfirms for me. I think you should write the book. :) I will buy an advanced copy.
ping!
Technically, any chaplain can always refuse any marriage, since a wedding service is a religious service for almost any denomination I can think of. Again, technically, chaplains are supposed to be able to conduct religious services according to the dictates of their faith group. In fact, they are required to be a legitimate representative of their faith group.
However, there are pressures that can be brought to bear that are easily more formidable than a board of deacons or a church/parish council or even a bishop. One does not easily refuse a rater, intermediate rater, or senior rater when they “suggest” certain things. In the past, it was easy enough to say, “That goes against my denomination and would not be appropriate.” All of those raters were respectful of that.
Homosexual commanders and/or advocates are blinded, though, by their power, and they are part of a mindset that seeks to advance their cause, whether coordinated or not.
They would love to have a Catholic or Southern Baptist (or other) chaplain establish the precedent that full acceptance of homosexuality, including homosexual marriage, is not a problem for them. That precedent would gradually seep into the consciousness of all commanders, and they would then expect their chaplains to have same “flexibility.”
The bottom line is that denominational endorsers need to be clear and merciless in their enforcing of their standards with their chaplains. Any report of any chaplain who has strayed from the reservation must be met with immediate reprimand and immediate removal of that chaplain’s endorsement.
They must not allow compromise of principle even once.
An EO won’t be necessary and I expect that the conscience clause will simply be ignored.
Chaplains who “cause trouble” will simply be passed over for promotion and otherwise drummed out, paving the way for chaplains who are on board with Obama’s agenda.
Excellent post #37. Pinging....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.