Muzzling Military Chaplains

Catholic World Report ^ | 1/16/13 | George Neumayr

[marshmallow]

One of the items on Obama’s second term agenda is to root out traditionally Christian chaplains from the military. He sees them as bigots unworthy of conscience protections. Like Chick-fil-A, they don’t uphold Obama’s “values.”

Obama’s mouthpieces in the military have already blurted this out. In 2010, Admiral Michael Mullen told a Christian chaplain who opposed the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that “If you cannot get in line, resign your commission.” That same year Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, the Army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel, said military members who dissent from Obama’s gay rights agenda should “get out.”

“Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them,” he said, as reported by the Washington Times. “But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out.”

Pentagon officials go through the motions of saying that military chaplains still enjoy religious freedom. But this claim grows ever more lawyerly and narrow. When Defense Department Counsel Jeh C. Johnson testified before Congress about the implications of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy’s collapse for religious freedom, he said that it would not affect what a chaplain said in “the religious context.” In other words, chaplains would be punished for objecting to Obama’s gay rights agenda anywhere outside of a pulpit.

But even that feeble promise isn’t worth taking seriously, since Obama’s military officials have already regulated sermons from the pulpit. Last year they forbade Catholics chaplains from orally criticizing the HHS mandate, permitting only a printed objection to it. How long before the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains requires vetting of all....

[YHAOS]

Atheist howling and caterwauling to begin in 4 . . 3 . . 2 . .
BEEP

[loveliberty2]

The so-called "progressive" agenda (that movement formerly self-described as "liberals") has, since the late 1800's, sought to replace the founding concept of Creator-endowed individual rights, liberty and laws to protect them, with the movement's own false concept of imperfect persons in government assuming the role of the "Supreme Being."

The electorate must become educated to these competing ideas and rediscover America's Founding principles, which can enable them to recognize which are true ideas of liberty, and which are counterfeit ideas of tyranny. That is not easy.

In 2008, Michael Ledeen, on another subject altogether, wrote of the degree to which Americans have been "dumbed down" on some basic ideas underlying our freedom:

Ledeen said, "Our educational system has long since banished religion from its texts, and an amazing number of Americans are intellectually unprepared for a discussion in which religion is the central organizing principle."

In the Pope's speech in Germany a few years ago, he observed:

"A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."

Ledeen put his finger on a problem that stifles meaningful dialogue and debate in America on a number of subjects--as is now exhibited in the discussion on the causes and solutions to acts of violence such as that in Newtown. Censors [disguised as "protectors" (the Radical Left's ACLU, NEA, education bureaucracies, etc., etc.)] have imposed their limited understanding of liberty upon generations of school children.

From America's founding to the 1950's, ideas derived from religious literature were included in textbooks, through the poetry and prose used to teach children to read and to identify with their world and their country.

Suddenly, those ideas began to disappear from textbooks, until now, faceless, mindless copy editors sit in cubicles in the nation's textbook publishing companies, instructed by their supervisors to remove mere words that refer to family, to the Divine, and to any of the ancient ideas that have sustained intelligent discourse for centuries.

Now, it is the ACLU which accuses middle Americans of "censorship" if they object to books, films, etc., that offend their sensibilities and undermine the character training of their young. Sadly, many of those books and films are themselves products of the minds that have been robbed of exposure to wisdom literature in the nation's schools and universities.

Back in 1876, a Black Minister and Ohio State Legislator, Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett, delivered the "Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon," celebrating the Declaration of Independence, at St. Paul A.M.E. Church in Urbana, Ohio. The Sermon can be read online at the American Memory Section of the LOC, in the African-American Collection. Below is a small excerpt from that Sermon's conclusion. In it Rev. Arnett warned about a movement among "liberals" to remove the ideas underlying America's founding documents. See if you don't recognize those ideas from what you have observed in recent years:

"The Danger to our Country.

"Now that our national glory and grandeur is principally derived from the position the fathers took on the great questions of right and wrong, and the career of this nation has been unparalleled in the history of the past, now there are those who are demanding the tearing down the strength of our national fabric. They may not intend to tear it down, but just as sure as they have their way, just that sure will they undermine our superstructure and cause the greatest calamity of the age. What are the demands of this party of men? Just look at it and examine it for yourselves, and see if you are willing that they shall have their way; or will you still assist in keeping the ship of state in the hands of the same crew and run her by the old gospel chart! But ye men who think there is no danger listen to the demands of the Liberals as they choose to call themselves:

"'Organize! Liberals of America! The hour for action has arrived. The cause of freedom calls upon us to combine our strength, our zeal, our efforts. These are The Demands of Liberalism:

"'1. We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no longer be exempt from just taxation.

"'2. We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in State Legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued.

"'3. We demand that all public appropriations for sectarian educational and charitable institutions shall cease.

"'4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text-book or avowedly as a book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.

"'5. We demand that the appointment, by the President of the United States or by the Governors of the various States, of all religious festivals and fasts shall wholly cease.

"'6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other departments of the government shall be abolished, and that simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be established in its stead.

"'7. We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.

"'8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of “Christian” morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial liberty.

"'9. We demand that not only in the Constitution of the United States and of the several States, but also in the practical administration of the same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.'

"'Let us boldly and with high purpose meet the duty of the hour.'

"Now we must not think that we have nothing to do in this great work, for the men who are at the head of this movement are men of culture and intelligence, and many of them are men of influence. They are led by that thinker and scholar, F. E. Abbott, than whom I know but few men who has a smoother pen, or who is his equal on the battle-field of thought. He says in an address on the duty of his leagues:

"'My answer may be a negative one to all who see nothing positive in the idea of liberty. The conviction I refer to is this: that, regarded as a theological system, Christianity is Superstition, and, regarded as an organized institution, Christianity is Slavery. The purpose I refer to is this: that, whether regarded as theological system, Christianity shall wholly cease to exercise influence in political matters. Although the national Constitution is strictly secular and non-Christian, there are many things in the practical administration of the government which violate its spirit, and constitute a virtual recognition of Christianity as the national religion. These violations are very dangerous; they are on the increase; they more and more give Christianity a practical hold upon the government; they directly tend to strengthen the influence of Christianity over the people, and to fortify it both as a theology and a church; and they are therefore justly viewed with growing indignation by liberals. Not unreasonably are they looked upon as paving the way to a formidable effort to carry the Christian Amendment to the Constitution; and the liberals are beginning to see that they must extinguish the conflagration in its commencement. I believe all this myself, with more intense conviction every day; and therefore I appeal frankly to the people to begin now to lay the foundations of a great National Party of Freedom. It is not a moment too soon. If the liberals are wise, they will see the facts as they are, and act accordingly. Not with hostility, bitterness, defiance, or anger but rather with love to all men and high faith in the beneficence of consistently republican institutions, do I urge them most earnestly to begin the work at once.'

"He acknowledges that this is a religious nation and wants all men to assist him in eliminating the grand old granite principles from the framework of our national union. Will you do it freeman; will we sell the temple reared at the cost of so much precious blood and treasure? These men would have us turn back the hands on the clock of our national progress, and stay the shadow on the dial plate of our christian civilization; they would have us call a retreat to the soldiers in the army of Christ; the banner of the cross they would have us haul down, and reverse the engines of war against sin and crime; the songs of Zion they would turn into discord, and for the harmony and the melody of the sons of God, they would give us general confusion; they would have us chain the forces of virtue and unloose the elements of vice; they would have the nation loose its moorings from the Lord of truth and experience and commit interest, morally, socially; religiously and politically to the unsafe and unreliable human reason; they would discharge God and his crew and run the ship of State by the light of reason, which has always been but a dim taper in the world, and all the foot-prints it has left are marked with the blood of men, women and children. No nation is safe when left alone with reason.

"But we have no notion of giving up the contest without a struggle or a battle. We are aware that there is a great commotion in the world of thought. Religion and science are at arms length contending with all their forces for the mastery. Faith and unbelief are fighting their old battles over again, everything that can be shaken is shaking. The foundations of belief are assaulted by the army of science and men are changing their opinions. New and starting theories are promulgated to the world; old truths are putting on new garbs. Error is dressing in the latest style, wrong is secured by the unholy alliances, changes in men and things, revolution in church and state, Empires are crumbling, Kingdoms tottering; everywhere the change is seen. In the social circle, in the school house, in the pulpit and in the pews. But amid all the changes are revolutions their are some things that are unchangeable, unmovable and enduring. The forces that underline the vital power of Christianity are the same yesterday, to-day, to-morrow and forever more. They are like their God, who is omnipotent, immovable and eternal, and everywhere truth has marched it has left its moccasin tracks."

So said Rev. Benjamin Arnett in 1876. Where is the leader who will declare these things today? His theme was "Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, but Sin is a Reproach to Any People." Might such outspoken thoughts not enlighten the minds of Americans today as they discuss the topic of this thread? Can any who read Rev. Arnett's listing of "The Demands of Liberalism" not see the similarity between those 1876 "demands" and recent policies and actions of today's political "elitists"?

[Sweet Hour of Prayer]

So, now they are kicking God out of the military. There were more military suicides last year than combat casualties. Just more of the “hope and change” Obama delivered to the American people.

[American in Israel]

The strength of America is its foundation in God. If Obama is to effect the destruction of the United States, it is critical to remove God from the Military.

Lets quit playing around, we have a Traitor in Chief. Who, now that he has his second term, will do as Moscow bids as he promised Putins aid.

[Venturer]

If Obama isn’t the anti-Christ, he will do until the anti-Christ comes along.

[ducttape45]

This has been going on for a lot longer than Obama’s time in office. I was a chapel manager back in the 1980/1990’s in the Air Force and true christian ministers were ostracized even then. That’s one of the reasons why I separated after 10 years. I couldn’t stand the hypocrisy.

[onedoug]

I was in the Army from 1967 thru 1971, including a year in Vietnam. With the exception of the political fiasco that led to our giving up in that “war”, I’ve long thought it was a personally valuable experience.

As a high school baseball coach, a lot of kids have asked me if I thought the military was a good idea following graduation.

I have to say I’m torn now, knowing how important it should be to the nation as we are constnatly threatened with hostile forces and ideologies. Yet given the core leadership and values structures that are consntantly undermining our national defense, as well as our “islamist in Chief” at its head, I am increasingly reserved in telling them that it is any longer a “good” thing to do.

God help us all that this is what we, and our country have come to.

[RBStealth]

In the next world war, or at least at what I perceive it to be. The Army and Marines are not safe. The Navy will longer be safe(a big and surprising change: missiles). The Air Force for an enlisted man will be relatively safe-well maybe. The Coast Guard should be the safest. With drug smugglers who travel by night and are just ‘sneakers’ not military opponents being the biggest worry.

I’ve got a stepson who is considering the military. I mentioned the safety of the Coast Guard and he is concerned about safety. But he’s not particularly bright nor persuadable unless its his friends or the TV. So far he poo poo’s the idea of the Coast Guard being safe because he heard of a couple of Coast Guard guys being shot up when they boarded a drug smuggling eeny weeny tiny boat. Very rare, and I’m sure the Coast Guard took care of business with that one!

[Yosemitest]

" ... How long before the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains requires vetting of all sermons on homosexuality?

At Maoist-style reeducation sessions, soldiers and chaplains have already been told that
“You remain obligated to follow orders that involve interaction with others who are homosexual
even if an unwillingness to do so is based on strong, sincerely held moral or religious beliefs.”

Also, it is not even clear if military chaplains control who speaks from their pulpits.
It is likely that they will have to turn them over to other ministers preaching at gay nuptials whenever the Pentagon so decrees.
A September 2011 memo from DOD general counsel Johnson indicates
that any chapel space on a military base can be appropriated for gay weddings, which is a blatant violation of the Defense of Marriage Act.
“Determinations” of chapel space, he wrote, “should be made on a sexual-orientation neutral basis.”
By 2011, in open defiance of DOMA, the military authorized ministerial training for gay marriage ceremonies on military bases.

Considering himself very generous and tolerant, Obama has said that he would never force a priest or minister to preside at a gay wedding.
This is an absurdly low guarantee of religious freedom.
But there is no reason to suppose that he will even honor that low standard, given that he sees such a stance as discriminatory.
In time, pressure, both direct and indirect, will be brought to bear on non-participating ministers. Even their silence will be seen as a hate crime.
Careers will rise or fall depending upon the level of one’s participation in the promotion of gay rights.

The “LGBT” community will no doubt frame the issue as one of “access”:
How can a gay soldier have a right to marry on a military base if military chaplains are free to refuse to marry them?
At last year’s first gay wedding at West Point, the lesbian couple complained to the press that none of the ministers on campus agreed to marry them,
so they had to fly a chaplain in from elsewhere.

Using the “access” argument, Obama scotched Bush-era conscience protections for pro-life Christian doctors working at federal hospitals.
They are required to distribute abortifacients whether they like it or not.
When the time is right, Obama will use the same “access” argument to require ministerial participation in gay weddings.

Keeping this option open, Obama last week announced that he will disobey a provision protecting chaplains
which Republicans included in the national defense authorization bill he signed.
The provision states that the religious views of a soldier cannot be
“the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination or denial of promotion, schooling, training or assignment,”
and that chaplains cannot be forced
“to perform any rite, ritual or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs of the chaplain.”

Just as Obama refuses to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, so he promises to ignore this provision, as he said in his signing statement, calling it “unnecessary and ill-advised.”
He added that he will not let it slow down his gay-rights agenda:
“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.”

Obama won’t promise to protect these military chaplains
for the simple reason that he views them as the moral equivalent of segregationists.
Chai Feldblum, one of Obama’s commissioners on the EEOC, has written
that the state, acting in the name of nondiscrimination, enjoys an absolute right to violate the religious freedom of Christians:
“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena,
even if such beliefs are based on religious views,
we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT people.”

That’s the essential view animating all of Obama’s policies related to Christianity.
Under this secularist dogmatism, Christianity has no public rights.
Freedom, as Feldblum puts it, is a “zero sum game” in which the religious deserve to lose. "

People who trust Jesus and His Heavenly Father need nto get out of the U.S. military NOW, today!
Pray to our Heavenly Father to turn Barack Hussein Obama II over to Satan

"... for the destruction of the flesh,
that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

Obama is INTENTIONALLY DESTROYING the U.S. Military.
Obama is NOT Christian. He's MUSLIM.

Didn't our Heavenly Father, through our Savior tell us...

" thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."

How well we deserve this curse (~so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things~) God has given us,
through the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF, the FASCIST Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama II IS a Muslim.
His actions prove it.
To believe Barack Hussein Obama II, when he claims to be a Christian, is to trust Satan.
Muslims are well know for lying about their faith.

MUSLIMS are allowed to LIE and deceive NON MUSLIMS, if it benefits or protects ISLAM.
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Posted by Atheist

For a better understanding of the issue, read HISTORY of Mohammed ( spelled variously; Mahomet, Muhammed, Mehmet, etc. ).

Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!

Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.

It was given by our Heavenly Father to test us
to see ... if we will OBEY our Heavenly Father,
and abide by His commandments, statues, and ordinances.

Someone once asked

"Why are they [homosexuals] all so angry?"

The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE".

rep·ro·bate \ˈre-prə-ˌbāt\ a. [L. reprobatus, reprobo, to disallow; re and probo, to prove.]

1. Not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.


Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Jer. 6.




2. Abandoned in sin; lost to virtue or grace.

They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Titus 1.

3. Abandoned to error, or in apostasy. 2Tim. 3.

And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

God has a cure for homosexuals.

But will we OBEY our Heavenly Father?

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!

[7thson]

Question - did the Chaplain Mullin said this to, did he resign his commission and get out? Or did he suck it up, justifying his worldly rank more important than serving God? How about the other Chaplains? Are they getting out?

[USAF80]

Not yet. All quiet so far. Just have to do the stupid Freedom Of Religion Training every year or so. The chaplains still pray at dinners etc. The only changes have been the elimination of “Christmas” parties in official communications. They are “Holiday” parties now even though most people still called them Christmas parties.

[USAF80]

I still encourage people to join. We can’t let the ranks be swelled by malcontents and deviants. The best way to combat it is with people on the inside.

[DBeers]

Thanks for posting this.