NEWT leads Mitt 39-32
when FL vote divided per RNC rules!
Click to Donate to Newt Gingrich
Washington DC 20003
Posted on 02/04/2012 10:25:49 AM PST by bkopto
The emerging conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration may have a new front: in the U.S. military itself.
The Catholic Church is fighting mad about an HHS ruling that would have them buy insurance for things they consider sinful–contraception, sterilization and abortion.
All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church "cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law."
Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter.
But after he did, the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief.
More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway.
SNIP
The letter also tries to clarify to priests that the Archbishop's letter "concerns a moral, not a political issue."
While it is true that soldiers do not have an unlimited right to free speech or political action, the military does not want to strain relations with the Catholic Church and its chaplains who provide services to many service members of all faiths.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.businessinsider.com ...
James Madison wrote in Detached Memoranda:
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds and consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics and Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Congress would suffice for the purpose? How just would it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expense of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Executive or judiciary branch of the Government. ...
Does it seem to you as if WWII never ended? Because it sure is beginning to seem that way to me.
No, they actually are torn.
Their protest, which they won’t do for practical purposes, would be just what was intended.
The very and only problem is the voters voting in a president who has no regard for his main duty - upholding the Constitution.
People need to quit blaming the military for not doing what we civilians are supposed to do- take care of the military who protect us.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
True, but if we remove the muslims, we solve almost all the problems , right down to Obama!
America needs to recognize that Isla m is not a religion , yet it is pushing us around internally. Globally is a larger issue, a pill that we need not swallow neither, irrespective of how much sugar they coat it with!
Personally, I think a donation to FR might do more for the Republic than a donation to the GOP.
Never donate to the RNC...COntribute here as a dollar a day and donate to individual candidates.
The Branch Davidians were viewed as a threat even though they were religious not political.
Islam is political not religious. We need to recognize that once Muslims reach around a 10% level in a country they are required to pursue sharia, which is an anti-US-Constitution political ideology. They become enemies of the US Constitution once they become 10% of the population. The US needs to take measures to make sure that they will never get close to 10% of the population, as a means to undercut an EXISTENTIAL and CONSTITUTIONAL threat to this democratic republic.
That’s not restriction of religion. It’s anti-terrorism.
If there’s an exception to buying the insurance in Sharia law, all the Catholics have to do is adopt Sharia law and they’re good to go.
I really wish the rest of America had a similar handle on it as you.
Globally, they want us to subscribe to their 7th century BACKWARDS BARBARIAN ways. Tell me.... What have these idiots contributed to modern man , political or religious thought?
Nothing. Nada. Yet they stay trapped, not able to solve their problems. They need their own rebirth. Maybe then they can enjoy progress.
“good order and discipline” muzzles military priests.
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE:
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop's letter. Additionally, the line: "We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law" was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.
First, this is an attack on the legitimacy of the Chaplain Corps itself, for, if they don't represent a real live denomination, then they represent the US government, and there is no such constitutional religion.
Second, the Chief of Chaplains went along with Obama, and in some frame of mind (drugged or drunken?) thought it "wise" to instruct chaplains to the ignore the doctrine and beliefs of HIS OWN church (Rutherford's also a Roman Catholic), a move that puts those chaplains at odds with their very reason for being in the chaplaincy in the first place...to be a fully ordained representative of their denomination to the military.
Third, one hopes the chief had some strategery in mind that missed the eye, because otherwise he deserves a dunce cap.
Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter. But after he did, the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief.
What if the CIC is seditious??????? Where then do the oaths all (Congress, Judges, and the military) have taken come from theory to action.
IMHO this President needs to Articles of impeachment filled in the House. I understend it will never get by the Senate but the MSM would HAVE to cover it !!!
Time the Repubs get a pair !!
I couldn’t disagree more.
I know people who have stayed in and people who have left on conscience. They are two different breeds, and the former far outnumber the latter.
I was in during the latter days of Vietnam supposedly “serving” or “protecting” my country. I only saw a small bit of action off the coast, but knew many who saw lots of action, and knew guys who died there, and I cannot believe that I or any other soul that was in that conflict, or any conflict since then, have really contributed much to the protection of this nation or its people. Our troops fight undeclared wars against vague enemies, following every imaginable goal under the sun except total victory, and have lost every such “war” since WWII. The home front is never mobilized for war, nor willing to do what it takes to vanquish our enemies. The whole thing is a charade.
I would applaud the patriotic motives of those who go in, except that the noble motives of these men need to be tempered by a realistic assessment of the mission: if they do that, they would never volunteer for these follies in the first place. And now, by staying in, they are simply propping up a national and global elite hell bent on tyranny and the destruction of the foundation on which this country was founded. For this reason, I do blame them, and I applaud any with the intelligence and honor not to participate.
Specifically, at this time they are serving and protecting a government that is willfully and brazenly trampling on the religious freedoms on which this nation was founded, and they are violating the oath they took to defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. For that I blame them, not the voters.
Your UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE violates the US Constitution in numerous instances, such as this one. I personally piss on it as well as those who think it’s the law of the land.
Given Obama’s medicare . . . my monthly income . . .
$361.xx then less tithes and offerings.
They need to sue under the Equal Protection clause. Muslims are being exempted from this Obamacare business, and so should he rest of us.
Bigoted bastards.
“But after he did, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief.”
Legally, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains could not, without violating their rights, tell the Catholic chaplains that they could not READ the letter.
By trying to decide what they cannot read, the Chief of Chaplains exceeded his legal authority and attempted to control what they think and to prejudge what their behavior might be due to what he judged as wrong thinking.
He knows what all chaplains know. We may try to live by moral rules and we may seek for moral rules to decide our actions and behavior. We are also earthly bound to the rules of our secular authorities. We know there are consequences from both the moral authority, G-d, and the secular authority. When and if we cannot satisfy both, we know we will, in the end, satisfy one and accept the consequences from the other; asking for the mercy of both. Chaplains already understand this, as their daily lives as chaplains are filled with examples of it, for themselves and for all the men and women in the military they serve.
That is all he needed to remind the chaplains of. He is the one who presumed the response of the Catholic chaplains would be both political and contrary to the military rules of the chaplains, because HE apparently has his own, political, disagreement with what was said in the letter he did not want them to read.
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.