On the other hand I can also see where the reading of the letter in whole or in part could be perceived that the Army Catholic Chaplains are taking a political stand on policy. As a former Army Officer I know that there is no place in the military for political politics. That is political politics and policy should left up to our civilian political leaders. We as military members and leaders execute their decided up policies.
The rules have changed: Gays in the military. Restrictive rules of engagement. Fort Hood Muslim murderer was not a terrorist. Now silencing mainstream Christianity.
Nope. There's only obedience to this oath:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Do some reading about the military martyrs who gave up their lives rather than obey unjust orders.
This "politics from the pulpit" twaddle is the kind of intellectual legerdemain used by radical statists to make us think that religion is making encroachments into the sphere of politics instead of politics making encroachments into the sphere of religion.
Make no mistake about it. Compromising on this issue would be the equivalent of "burning a pinch of incense to Caesar."
Your argument was tried, unsuccessfully, at Nuremburg.
“....is political politics and policy should left up to our civilian political leaders.”
The operative assumption underlying all politics and law is someone’s idea of morality. Just as the removal of incandescent light bulbs proceeds apace because policy-makers see them as wasteful (morally bad) so the unleashing of wolves out West is viewed by certain people as a moral good.
Here in America our foundational unalienable right is life. From this right proceed our other rights. This right is not from man but from man’s Creator, hence it is unalienable.
If in the name of a manmade moral good man can take away the right to life at one end (the unborn) then he can take it away at the other end, the elderly. Having deprived these two groups of life man can deprive those in the middle area of life.
If some men can ‘morally’ deprive others of the right to life then they can ‘morally’ (politically) require all people, including Christians to promote the taking of life.
And if in the name of this spurious morality men can deprive other people of their right to life then they can seize their property and redistribute it to others. They can throw our borders open, condemn as morally bad such things as SUVs, gas grills, gas lawn mowers, incandescent light bulbs, etc.
All politics, all decisions pertaining to war, all laws are at bottom about someone’s idea of right and wrong.