Beliefnet News

Beliefnet News


Chaplains Keep Wary Eye On Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell Repeal

posted by mconsoli

c. 2010 Religion News Service WASHINGTON (RNS) As Congress and the Pentagon grapple with a proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military, some chaplains — especially evangelicals — worry the change will infringe on their religious beliefs.
“It’s morally wrong,” said the Rev. Billy Baugham, executive director of the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, saying his group believes the Bible condemns homosexuality.
“The implication of that is that the military is going to force military personnel — both Christians and non-Christians — to accept that value.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, with the backing of the White House and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon will spend a year studying the ramifications of repealing the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy, which has been in place since 1993.
In January, even before the change was announced, Baugham’s group huddled with military and legal experts to plan their opposition. The group said the current policy should remain intact so chaplains can “faithfully proclaim the truth presented in God’s Word” and safeguard members of the armed forces from “the unimaginable environment that open homosexual conduct would inflict upon that very close society.”
Paul Vicalvi, a retired Army chaplain who directs the Chaplains Commission for the National Association of Evangelicals, has written to the chief chaplains in the Army, Navy and Air Force, saying the military was “created to serve for the good of our nation and not to be a social experiment or testing ground for society at large.”
Vicalvi said the proposed change is prompting a range of questions, from whether heterosexual chaplains will be mandated to serve in the same pulpit as gay ministers to whether chaplains would be required to permit a gay couple to attend a marriage retreat.
“That will really shut them down,” he said of the retreats. “And we will lose a great gift that the chaplains give to the military in keeping marriages together if this happens.”
Concerned chaplains have already contacted him, he said, looking for guidance.
“A number of them are calling me already and saying, `What do we do?
Do we resign? Do we have to marry a gay couple?” he said. “They want direction from us.”
The Rev. George Miller, chairman of the board of the Evangelical Church Alliance, also wrote to Gates arguing that reversing current policy “will create a constitutional challenge with the free exercise of religion.”
Miller, who also directs his denomination’s Military Chaplain Commission, said chaplains who’ve contacted him say they are “a little bit nervous” and are concerned their ability to preach freely will be restricted.
In a Feb. 17 letter to President Obama and Gates, the conservative Christian law firm Alliance Defense Fund added to the questions: Could chaplains preach against homosexuality, and how would they be required to counsel military members on the subject?
“… (I)f the government chooses to repeal current law and normalize homosexual behavior in the military, chaplains with contrary religious beliefs will be forced to choose `to obey God or men,”‘ the ADF said.
Those concerns, however, are not universally shared.
The Rev. John Gundlach, who oversees government chaplaincies for the United Church of Christ, joined two other retired military chaplains in a letter to Obama and Gates to rebut the swirl of “false conflicts and innuendos.”
The three men also wrote an eight-page document called “What the Military Would Look Like Without `Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.”‘ It says chaplains can’t perform duties that violate the teachings of their faith but are “duty bound” to assist military members with referrals for requested services.
“I think there’s been a lot of jousting at straw men,” Gundlach said. “I think there’s still going to be plenty of room to provide ministries according to our own faith groups. So far (gay) marriage is not legitimate because of public laws in most places.”
But Gundlach, who comes from one of the country’s most gay-friendly denominations, said even UCC chaplains are divided over whether the law should be rescinded.
“I know that our chaplains run the spectrum on this, too,” said Gundlach, a retired Navy chaplain. “We are an open and affirming denomination but, within that, we can’t speak with one voice for everybody.”
Vicalvi, of the NAE’s Chaplains Commission, said evangelicals’ opposition to the change is not a reflection of homophobia but rather their belief that “homosexuality is a sin just like every other sin.”
“We are not against homosexual people.”

Copyright 2010 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(66)
post a comment
nnmns

posted February 25, 2010 at 7:36 pm


What in the H*ll are these guys preaching to our soldiers anyway! Why on earth would we want them preaching to the soldiers that part of society is evil? Shouldn’t they be preaching about being good people and “God” will look out for them and things like that? Is the government paying these people to divide society? If soldiers want that nonsense let them find a church off the base; I’m sure they can find any number of nonsensical churches by their bases.
Those chaplains are not serving the fighting men and women and they are not serving the nation. They are only serving their own ends.
Any number of other countries don’t have these restrictions and get along fine. I hate many of Israel’s policies but you can’t deny the effectiveness of their military, and gays serve in their military as we just read in a recent article. Is there something lacking in Americans that we can’t do as well as all those other countries?
And cknuck before you come down on the wrong side of this, please remember it was Truman’s integration of the services that made a big step in society’s integration. And surely you realize that most of the people arguing against letting in homosexuals would have, at that time, argued against integrating the fighting units.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 25, 2010 at 8:07 pm


nnmns, you have said most of what I was thinking….so I will not repeat my thoughts. Good post…good points!
When I read/heard on NPR that it is going to take Gates and crew 1 entire year (if we’re lucky) to discuss the ramifications of repealing DADT. What’s to discuss??? Just do it! The NPR program mentioned all the countries that have permitted openly gay members in the military (including Israel),all within the last 15 to 20 years, and there have been no problems.
This contry is so far behind in so many ways.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted February 25, 2010 at 9:14 pm


I recently read a news item on the Advocate, it wouldn’t be reported on anything else, after all, it just applies to gay men and women who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq, just as Evangelical troops are. A soldier lost his fighting partner and didn’t know he was gay until after he was killed. Imagine, a sign didn’t pop up on his forehead and say be careful I’m gay! It is estimated that over 200 gay or lesbian service members have died overseas for all of you out there. Yet these hallowed Chaplains are worried that they may not be able to preach against homosexuality if DADT is wiped out. I’m sure God is disappointed in all of you that treat our friends, sons, daughters, grandsons, grandaughters, nephews, neices, brothers, sisters with such opinions and teachings.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 25, 2010 at 9:37 pm


“I’m sure God is disappointed in all of you that treat our friends,sons, daughters, grandsons,grandaughters,nephews, neices, brothers, sisters with such opinions and teachings.”
Amen to that, Henrietta. The worried Evangelicals are in the wrong business it that is their attitude towards the gay men and women in the Armed Forces.



report abuse
 

footwork61

posted February 25, 2010 at 11:02 pm


Such wild extrapolation it is to go from repealing DADT to dealing with “an unimaginable environment of open homosexual conduct.” All the services have regulations dealing with personal conduct and displays of affection.
It’s the same old bigoted misrepresentation of gays to assume that we would have orgies day and night if there weren’t someone to stop us. The gay men and women in the armed forces have other things to worry about — like getting their brains scrambled by IEDs — to be planning the next S&M orgy on the parade ground.
Of course, first and foremost our chaplain friends (who deserve respect for their dedication to the well-being of our armed forces) have to acknowledge that there are NO biblical prohibitions against homosexuality. The concept of sexual orientation as an innate trait is only about 100 years old. The word “homosexual” itself is less than 150 years old. The bible provides prohibitions against certain sexual PRACTICES, not ORIENTATIONS. If you insist that homosexuality is sinful, then you must also insist that heterosexuality is sinful because of biblical prohibitions against adultery, incest, divorce, etc.
But, back to the topic at hand. I can’t imagine what lengths our gay service members go through to keep from outing themselves. They can’t keep pictures of partners with them like their straight comrades. They can’t even talk about their boyfriends or girlfriends like their straight friends. Anniversaries and birthdays go unacknowledged for fear of outing. Their phone conversations and e-mails are guarded. What all that hiding and lying does to unit cohesion is surely worse than what knowledge of a friend’s orientation would do.
Such a breath of fresh air it would be to let these people just be who they are! There will always be tensions in interpersonal relationships to manage based on race, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), social class, politics, favorite baseball team, etc. Any tension around sexual orientation can surely be managed in the same way. Our men and women in uniform are young, but I have a great deal of respect for their professionalism and dedication.
May God bless and keep the men and women of our armed forces close to His heart, and give them leaders worthy of them.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 7:01 am


There are already a wide spectrum of beliefs not shared by Chaplains and this would be no different.
Try as they might, it’s a useless argument, and is exactly why gay marriage should be allowed not just in the military but in our country. They are crying that they may not be able to practice their religion when in essence not only are they allowed to practice it but millions of others aren’t allowed to practice their religious beliefs of acknowledging the sanctity of their relationships.
Sucks to be confronted with the fact that others don’t share your religious beliefs, doesn’t it? Get over it and get used to it! The rest of us with varying beliefs have been tolerating yours for years.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:14 am


Surely a Universalits/Unitarian chaplain’s response would be different from that of a narrowminded ‘evangelical’ chaplain’s. Likewise for a United Church chaplain. Or an MCC chaplain.
Do these ‘evangelical’ chaplains not believe in freedom of religion? Why should only their beliefs be the ones disseminated within the military? Not all religions are of one accord (i.e. the anti-gay one) on the matter of homosexuality. What of the gay (if not out) serviceperson who needs counseling/comforting? Why should their needs be dismissed/put down because of some bigotted chaplain’s beliefs?



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:18 am


“so chaplains can “faithfully proclaim the truth presented in God’s Word”
Shurely that should read: ‘so chaplains can faithfully proclaim their version of the truth presented in God’s Word’
“and safeguard members of the armed forces”
These are soldiers, not babies.
“from “the unimaginable environment that open homosexual conduct would inflict upon that very close society.”
Yeah, r-i-i-i-g-h-t, that’ll happen. Sorta like it did in the Canadian Armed Forces, the British Armed Forces, the Isreali Armed Forces. (I.E. not at all)
Dissemblers the lot of them.
If they have to resort to bearing false witness, they’ve already lost the war, nevermind this particular ‘battle’.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:21 am


Re: “the unimaginable environment that open homosexual conduct would inflict”
I wish they could be commanded to explain what the unimaginable environment that open heterosexual conduct has inflicted. Since it hasn’t done any such thing.
I mean, has ANY ‘open sexual conduct’ – heterosexual or homosexual – been allowed in the barracks or the trenches so far?
This is absurd.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:24 am


“whether heterosexual chaplains will be mandated to serve in the same pulpit as gay ministers”
They already do. Just as str8 soldiers already serve with gay soldiers.
“whether chaplains would be required to permit a gay couple to attend a marriage retreat.”
What if the gay couple happens to be married? Why on earth shouldn’t the be permitted to attend a marriage retreat?
“And we will lose a great gift that the chaplains give to the military in keeping marriages together if this happens.”
Seems they’re only interested in keeping SOME marriages together. Sorta like Let’s Focus On SOME People’s Families.
Bigots.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:27 am


More paranoia …
“Do we resign? Do we have to marry a gay couple?”
Considering that NO chaplain/priest/pastor/immam/rabbi is currently required to marry anyone at all, this is just more fear-mongering.
Or have they forgotten Catholic priests are allowed to not marry an interfaith couple, or divorced persons.
Liars the lot of them. I hope they rot in Hades for their false witness. They are a shame to God and to their country.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:30 am


“that reversing current policy “will create a constitutional challenge with the free exercise of religion.”
Considering that SOME faiths are already denied their right to practise their “free exercise of religion” (Unitarians marry same-sex couples, as do the United Church, both the Reformed and the (ahem) Conservative branches of Judaism, MCC.)
Such easily disproved hokum. I hope thier bogus claims are exposed in a big way.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:32 am


“Could chaplains preach against homosexuality”
Which chaplains? The UU ones would’t. Nor the others listed above.
And why should they? Christ himself was silent on the issue.
“and how would they be required to counsel military members on the subject?”
Again, WHICH members? Is this just about the bigoted ones? What about the gay military members?



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:34 am


“Vicalvi, of the NAE’s Chaplains Commission, said evangelicals’ opposition to the change is not a reflection of homophobia”
I call B.S.
“but rather their belief that “homosexuality is a sin just like every other sin.”
They’re welcome to their ‘beliefs’. Too bad they don’t extend that freedom of religion to other faiths and their tenets.
“We are not against homosexual people.”
I call MAJOR B.S.



report abuse
 

Proud Gay Canuck

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:39 am


Odd that the gay and lesbian soldiers who serve in the joint forces are protecting the Good Ole USA (TM) just fine. Wierd that Canadian sissies can fight but the big butch Amurricans seem to be afraid of pansies so much they lose all their ability to fight and defend the country.
Meh!



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 26, 2010 at 11:19 am


YN:
You mentioned that priests can’t marry interfaith couples? My adopted son married a Catholic woman, in a Catholic church, in 1997. He wasn’t and isn’t Catholic. All he had to do was understand the RC viewpoint or something. As it turns out she has left the RC church anyhow and they are raising the 2 kids in a non-denominational Christian church. So priests can marry 2 people who aren’t Catholic.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 26, 2010 at 11:22 am


OOPS! YN: should read—– So priests can marry 2 people, if only one is RC. (of course they have to be heterosexual!!! )



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted February 26, 2010 at 12:39 pm


“Do these ‘evangelical’ chaplains not believe in freedom of religion?”
Correct! They believe in freedom of their religion. Which is ok as long as they don’t get to run anything important.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 1:04 pm


PS,
I said they are allowed NOT to marry interfaith couples (i.e. they are not required to), not that they were not permitted to do so should they desire.
The complaining chaplains in this situation are claiming they will be REQUIRED to marry gay couples, which is not only false, but a red herring, since no clergy person of any faith whatsoever is ‘required’ to marry anyone.
Perhaps you thought I said they are not allowed to marry interfaith couples – an entirely different thing, and of course it isn’t the case (nor what I said).
Hope this clarifies things for you.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted February 26, 2010 at 1:26 pm


Nnmns go to article two days ago: “Jewish Groups Agree to Civility Despite Diffferences”
Information for you and anyone to check out about the UC Irvine distruption on Feb. 8.



report abuse
 

M Phillips

posted February 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm


Not surprising that clergy would be against an advance in human rights or equality. History teaches us that clergy, representatives of the church, (pick any church, practically) have fought each and every advance in human equality for roughly 2000 years or better now.
An easy example: from a purely biblical standpoint, supporters of slavery in the 1800′s were definitely on the winning side of the debate. Same with equal rights for women. Same, again, with any advance in the human moral zeitgeist.
No, nothing surprising here.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 26, 2010 at 3:02 pm


OOPS, YN. Misread your post. Thanks for correcting that.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm


Your Name,
Chaplains are also military officers. They must obey orders if they are illegal or immoral. The question to be addressed is ‘who’s morality will make the order legal?’ In my own time inside, chaplains were required to provide time and resources for satanists, and pagans. That is real, that does happen.
In short, military morality is legislatively defined – not defined by any holy book, teaching, or by acclamation. Chaplains will be required to administer rites sacred to any religion or flavor of religion, without recourse other than resignation/retirement.
“Red Herring” is a false flag argument. Our military is run on law. The Chaplains have to obey the law. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Harrass, Don’t Pursue” (the full name) provides chaplains of all faiths with the opportunity to serve. Repeal the law without considering the legal aspects to service and the military will quickly see its chaplaincy shrink to one or two Christian denominations, Buddhists and pagans.
One last point to consider. Chaplains come from most flavors of the Christian faith, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist. 100% of the discussion of DADTDHDP in terms of religion focuses on Christian-only responses. What of these other faiths? What is their response?



report abuse
 

DaveO

posted February 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm


Please correct to “They must obey orders unless they are illegal or immoral.”



report abuse
 

Khalila RedBird

posted February 26, 2010 at 3:35 pm


‘The group said the current policy should remain intact so chaplains can “faithfully proclaim the truth presented in God’s Word” ‘
The military is not and should not be obligated to maintain a policy so that chaplains of one religious stance can assert their beliefs in preference to chaplains with differing beliefs. There are many people — chaplains, military members, and civilians — who reject the assertion that the Bible represents “the truth presented in God’s Word” or that homosexuality is a sin or that the rights of people to equal treatment under law should be constrained on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.
Chaplains who do not agree to the condemnation of homosexuality should not be required to preach against it or to curtail their support for the military members in their care who also deny that condemnation.



report abuse
 

DavidEm

posted February 26, 2010 at 9:57 pm


Good. Maybe even the CHAPLAINS will start seeing us as human beings.
And did I read that right? They’re concerned about “serving in the same pulpit as gay ministers”? You’re JOKING, right?



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 26, 2010 at 10:20 pm


Unfortunately, DavidEm, you did read correctly!



report abuse
 

Fred Conwell

posted February 27, 2010 at 9:12 am


” unimaginable environment that open homosexual conduct” isn’t all that unimaginable to this author who even imagines Gays getting married or preaching. What horrors! He should ask Canada, Israel and the UK what torments they suffer when their Gay military perform their civic duty. Someone should get their head out of…the sand.



report abuse
 

Scott Smith

posted February 27, 2010 at 10:14 am


I don’t see where they’re losing anything, except the excuse to freely use religion as an excuse for bigotry. Doesn’t say much about the health of their personal faith if it’s so easily threatened by honesty about the military service of gays & lesbians, which after all has always been there.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 27, 2010 at 11:20 am


If the full name is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Harrass, Don’t Pursue”, then it has been badly mis-managed from the start. How is firing well-qualified, well-trained personnel in any way NOT harassment or pursuit?
And, somebody had to ‘tell’ (and ‘ask’, for that matter) otherwise there would be 14,000+ more troops serving.
What a joke – an UN-Constitutional joke at that!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 27, 2010 at 11:24 am


“Repeal the law without considering the legal aspects to service and the military will quickly see its chaplaincy shrink to one or two Christian denominations, Buddhists and pagans.”
Care to back that supposition up with some facts? Especially in light of the fact that it has done no such thing in any of the many other countries that allow gay people to serve.
If you anti folk didn’t have to bear continued false witness to make your ‘point’, you might be believed.



report abuse
 

Wannabe Theo

posted February 27, 2010 at 6:59 pm


M Philips wrote: “from a purely biblical standpoint, supporters of slavery in the 1800′s were definitely on the winning side of the debate.”
And yet the abolitionist movement was largely a Christian movement.
Imagine that. Taking a principled stand based on conscience and loving your neighbor as yourself, not battling bible verses.



report abuse
 

Tiktokklok

posted February 27, 2010 at 9:45 pm


For any division of the U.S. armed forces to have a “chaplain” of ANY kind is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. Primitive superstition has NO place in the U.S. military. All religious facilities, edifices etc. on U.S. military bases worldwide should be bulldozed and all “chaplains” should be dismissed from service. That the U.S. military continues to wallow in the filthy muck of religion in the 21st century is an embarrassment to the United States.
Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14458354#ixzz0gnHg0ru1



report abuse
 

Wannabe Theo

posted February 27, 2010 at 10:00 pm


Tiktokklok:
I could agree with the inappropriateness of chaplains in the armed services if it were a 9-5 job, but it isn’t. Since it is 24-7 work the services are obligated to provide services other employers aren’t.
” That the U.S. military continues to wallow in the filthy muck of religion in the 21st century is an embarrassment to the United States.”
What, other countries don’t have chaplains in their armed forces?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted February 27, 2010 at 10:38 pm


I’m as atheist as the next guy but I think people putting their lives on the line for us deserve some moral support, and if religion floats their boat, give them some. But never force it on anyone, and if a chaplain or an officer ever does that, kick his behind out in short order.



report abuse
 

JohnQ

posted February 28, 2010 at 6:10 am


nnmns-
I’m as Christian as the next guy but, I could not agree with you more.
I think people putting their lives on the line for us deserve some moral support, and if religion floats their boat, give them some. But never force it on anyone, and if a chaplain or an officer ever does that, kick his behind out in short order.
Peace!



report abuse
 

Chris

posted February 28, 2010 at 11:45 am


Having been a chaplain for many years I find this “debate” an excellent way to focus the spotlight on what’s wrong with chaplaincy in many institutions including the military. For many chaplains, human beings become their “mission field” and the chaplain is nothing more than another preacher among the heathen in need of salvation. Conservative Christians have a virtual monopoly on chaplaincies across the nation with much too much power and authority in these matters. A wiser approach would be for institutional directors to better understand the value of an Interfaith Chaplain, even a “secular” chaplaincy, that is, chaplains of All Faiths and No Faiths who serve people of All Faiths and No Faiths. Besides, doesn’t a “Christian Military” send a chilling (and really un-pluralistic American) message to all the world?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted February 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm


Thank you Chris. I think you’ve summed it up very well.



report abuse
 

A Gay Veteran

posted February 28, 2010 at 2:37 pm


I am gay soldier currently in the military. I’ve already served a term in Iraq and if you ask my command they will tell you I did a damn good job. As far as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” I can’t believe this is something that we are actually wasting our time debating. The bottom if you can perform your job, you should be allowed to no matter your sexual orientation. We are fighting a war, dealing with a shitty economy, and having a world disaster every month. Im sorry but with all that, who i decide to be with should not even be on anyones agenda. The bottom line “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a half-ass attempt to help gays serving in the military and all it did was force us into the closet. The article mentioned someone saying”We are not against homosexual people.” but instead they are concerned with being able to preach without any restriction. So let me get this straight in order for you to have freedom of religion, you have to limit freedoms. The same freedoms I went to Iraq and fought. You believe that being gay is a sin, then okay continue to believe that but keep it to your self because when its my time to come face to face with the man it will just be between me and him not you. People please stop using religion as a way to spew your hatred.
Im sorry for the poor writing, it hard to write when you are in constant fear that you may lose your job because of who you love.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 28, 2010 at 4:43 pm


Yes, Thanks Chris for your personal view from one who has experienced the military as a chaplain.
A Gay Veteran:
Thanks for your story. Also, thank you for your service to this country. I find it ridiculous that this is even debatable. Just lift the stupid DADT already….and get on with the job of protecting this country. Who someone loves is truly no one else’s business and certainly doesn’t interfer with their ability to do their job!



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted February 28, 2010 at 5:03 pm


You’d think that conservative Christians would be all for LGBT people serving in the military. Think about it. A gay soldier who gets shot and killed in Iraq won’t be able to protest and demand he be treated with the same respect as his fellow soldiers. It would be a way to diminish the “threat” we pose to them, without getting their hands dirty. Don’t tell me they’re too moral to have thought of such a thing. I don’t believe that for one second.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 28, 2010 at 6:27 pm


Our military is progressively weaker and lacking commitment homosexuality will weaken of forces even more. Our enemies who do not go down the road of homosexuality will be stronger.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 28, 2010 at 8:24 pm


Our military is progressively weaker? What are you basing that on, cknuck? Don’t think the service members would agree with you on that. You think that being a homosexual somehow makes it so a person can’t do their job? They are unable to die for this country? They are unable to carry a gun or have an IED blow up and take off a limb? They are unable to have mental problems when they get home due to the stress endured in Iraq, Afganistan. Oh, I guess when they get shot, they don’t bleed, because gays and lesbians are not really human!!! HELLO! They don’t have a disease….they are human being who don’t happen to meet with your approval because they love a person of the same gender. WOW! That is really BAD according to you and YOUR version of a divine being. Would hate to have you as a chaplain in the military…you’d make me feel worse, not better. Your god makes the fighting gays and lesbians in our military …..seem like they aren’t important for the jobs they do. Really sad. And please don’t feed me the Bible stuff. That is insignificant. Your talking about people here…living, breathing people who just happen to be fighting and taking risks so you can spill your stuff about homosexuality in this country. As a Vet., I think you would appreciate what they do. Only if they are heterosexual, I guess. Manly Men and Womenly Women. Riiiight!
I’m sure that A Gay Veteran would appreciate your comments. Am sure you would have appreciated a commment like the one you just made above when you got home. Real nice, ck.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted February 28, 2010 at 8:25 pm


Prove it.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 28, 2010 at 8:37 pm


BTW, cknuck, tell the military in Israel that….or the other countries that have not penalized their soldiers for their sexual orientation.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted February 28, 2010 at 10:31 pm


cknuck: “Our military is progressively weaker and lacking commitment homosexuality will weaken of forces even more. Our enemies who do not go down the road of homosexuality will be stronger.”
Our enemies also murder women for the “crime” of getting raped, or the “crime” of not covering their faces in public. Where do we draw the line?



report abuse
 

A Gay Veteran

posted February 28, 2010 at 11:44 pm


Pagansister, I couldn’t have said it better. I know that other gays in the military and myself included are really greatful to have someone like you speaking out for us.
cknuck, I’m so happy that I put my life on the line so you can have the right to say what you feel.
Now its my turn….I worked my ass off in Iraq. I’ll be damn if I’ll sit here and let you say that by me being gay I weakened the military. I would run freaking circles around my straight counter parts and never did the fact that I like guys get in the way of me doing my job (as a gunner going outside the wire might i add). Its no point in me wasting my time someone like you are set in your ways, no matter how wrong you are but i’ll just keep training in military so i can be prepared to go back to war to continue to fight for your rights.
Countries that Allow Homosexuals: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Russia, and many more.
Countries that don’t Allow Gays: China, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Syria, etc
Wow Iran, Korea, China, and Syria that would put the US in real good company *sarcasm*



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted March 1, 2010 at 12:23 am


homosexual vet, thank you for your service i am ex-military so i have done my share also. i do think that homosexuality among other weaknesses will weaken our military and i know many homosexuals. i do commend you on controlling your homosexual tendencies during your service but concerning homosexuality that is not the norm bu t the exception.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 1, 2010 at 6:25 am


Just what was your “share” cknuck? Was your life on the line a lot like AGV’s? You claim this and that but never give any detail, and recently we learned that when you sound literate you probably cribbed it.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 1, 2010 at 6:53 am


cknuck: “concerning homosexuality that is not the norm bu t the exception”
Bad news cknuck, concerning preaching that is not the norm but the exception.
Concerning Christianity that is not the norm but the exception.
Concerning being American that is not the norm but the exception.
Concerning intense bigotry … well the jury is still out on that one.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 1, 2010 at 11:20 am


“Our military is progressively weaker and lacking commitment homosexuality will weaken of forces even more.”
ck, care to back up your statement of beliefs with some actual facts?
HOW is the American military “progressively weaker”? HOW is it “lacking commitment”? And HOW will homosexuality “weaken [the] forces” (especially in light of the fact that it did no such thing in any of the forces that allow gays to serve openly, like Britain, Canada and Israel)?
Now yer just makin’ stuff up to suit your purposes (dissemblance, bearing false witness).



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted March 1, 2010 at 11:43 am


A Gay Vet:
Only write what I feel. :o)
Your name indicates you may not be in active service or are you still in the military and now home for a bit?
Whatever the answer to the above…Take Goood Care!



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted March 1, 2010 at 7:14 pm


nnmns asked what was my share;
Trained to kill, killed many; what was your share nnmns other than your mouth?
YN other than the fact that we have not had ant decisive wins at war what else would you like for me to site? Visit your local V.A.
A.G.V. quote, “I would run freaking circles around my straight counter parts”
There is no i in team AGV and the last thing I would want on my team is a hot-dog that has something to prove. If you are running circles around the rest of your team, (which I highly doubt, I didn’t notice huge differences in the military in men) then you are an exception. Why don’t you move for special training like I had and take the bigger risk.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted March 1, 2010 at 7:40 pm


“I didn’t notice huge differences in the military in men”. cknuck, You mean you couldn’t tell the straight men from the homosexual men? What…no radar? You mean everyone did their job? OMG…everyone did their job no matter what their sexual orientation?? Guessing since it was Nam there weren’t any women on your team. So it must have been “just the guys”. Wow! How masculine and macho. (or so you thought)
“Why don’t you move for special training like I had and take a bigger risk”? cknuck
Now you a Nam vet are giving as Iraq vet advice? Or is this just because he happens to be a Gay vet? So not impressive.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted March 2, 2010 at 12:03 am


pagan if you weren’t an idiot with a bent on trying to support perversion then you would have realized I was talking about the difference in physical abilities not homo verse hetero. Once a military man reaches a certain level of accomplishment there is not much difference in abilities not like GV describes he described a boot-camp scenario not trained military personal.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 2, 2010 at 3:32 am


“what was your share nnmns other than your mouth?”
Funny you should ask. It was my mouth, and my knowledge, that my draft board decided it was more important I pass on rather than sending me off to kill or be killed or move supplies from point A to point B or whatever.
So your service record might help you get elected to something where mine probably wouldn’t, but we both served as our nation saw fit.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted March 2, 2010 at 1:35 pm


Your ego Ck. continues to amaze me. You are unbelievable in your posts.
Thank you Gay Vet for your input, just know that I as PS, will continue to hold you up and work for complete equality for GLBT.
Chaplain Chris, good ideas in your post.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted March 2, 2010 at 3:09 pm


cknuck: Sounds of me laughing at your response!
You were talking about differences in physical abilities? Sure.
I see that you have resorted to name calling…and having worked with children, I acquaint that trait with children’s behavior. This “idiot” will continue to support what I feel is right, since there is absolutely no perversion associated with it, IMO.
Have a very nice day or night or whatever.



report abuse
 

Curious Evangelical

posted March 3, 2010 at 8:57 am


Hmmm. I think it is interesting and significant that my fellow Evangelicals seem to want to go after homosexuals in the military as they are being “sinful.” Okay. Why not also go after the alcohol abusers and the sexually very active unmarried heterosexuals? Aren’t they being sinful too? I am former military. There are a L-O-T of alcohol abusers, and heterosexuals who are sexually promiscuous in the military!
Rev. Vicalvi, you have said that “…evangelicals’ opposition to the change is not a reflection of homophobia but rather their belief that ‘homosexuality is a sin just like every other sin.’” Then why have not you and your group likewise avoided being “alcoholic-phobic” or “promiscuous-phobic” and insist that these people be ousted from the military was well? After all, “Sin is sin!”
Also, homosexuality seems more like an orientation issue than a decisional issue. Alcohol abuse and promiscuity primarily seem to be more of a decisional issue. (Although, these behaviors are believed by many thelogians and psychotherapists to be addictions rather than vices.) So this makes me wonder, why are we Evangelicals going after people because of their orientation vs. going after people with decisional behavioral ills? Hmmm. Seems to me that Revs. Vicalvi and Baugham are going after the politically weakest group in the military, rather than take on the actions of the misbehaving “good old boys” — that is, if they feel compelled to go after any group at all.
Just call me Curious.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted March 3, 2010 at 12:20 pm


Excellent curiousity CE!



report abuse
 

Jonathon

posted March 3, 2010 at 6:54 pm


“some chaplains — especially evangelicals — worry the change will infringe on their religious beliefs”
There you have it, the chaplains care more about their own prerogatives and elevated position of power than the actual military service members CIVIL RIGHTS!!



report abuse
 

Mykelb

posted March 4, 2010 at 1:14 am


When I was a youngster travelling the world with my military family, I distinctly remember that the chapels on the forts were non-denominational. How is it that any Chaplain gets away with saying something so ignorant about being gay as “…it’s morally wrong…” when it is obvious he is talking about his personal religion, not what he is supposed to represent as a military professional. These military chaplains are supposed to give comfort and succor to ALL FAITHS, not just their evangelical literalist fundamentalist christians. Seems that by voicing that opinion, these chaplains have just outed themselves as ignorant bigots who are not doing their jobs.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted March 11, 2010 at 6:41 pm


There are some excellent posts just above. Worth reading. But what the heck is this doing back a week later?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 16, 2010 at 5:16 pm


cknuck
February 28, 2010 6:27 PM
“Our military is progressively weaker and lacking commitment”
Whence cometh this ‘statistic’? Methinks ck is offering up nothing more than his uninformed opinion. Again.
“homosexuality will weaken of [sic] forces even more.”
How? It has ‘always been the world’s mightiest force’ (TM) even with homosexuals serving in it. They just had to lie about themselves to be able to do it. More uninformed opinion.
“Our enemies who do not go down the road of homosexuality will be stronger. “
Would that ‘road’ be The Hershey Highway ??? ;{O)
U 2 funnee, ck. Me make joke 2 now.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Hispanics turning evangelical, Jews secular
Worship service attendance is up in New York City, but down among young adult Jews, according to recent studies. On the other hand, fewer Spanish-speaking teens are attending Catholic mass, but more are showing up at Evangelical churches. [caption id="attachment_12343" align="alignleft" width="48

posted 3:10:30pm Nov. 05, 2013 | read full post »

Billy Graham: I know where I'm going
“Daddy thinks the Lord will allow him to live to 95,” said Franklin Graham recently. It was not a prophecy but a hope, Franklin explained, that he would live to see the beginning of a Christian re

posted 10:02:01am Oct. 24, 2013 | read full post »

Are All These Christians' Complaints of Persecution Just So Much Empty Whining?
The headlines are alarming: “Catholic-Owned Company Wins Religious Freedom Court Decision,” “Death Toll Rises to 65 in Boko Haram Attack on Students,” “Little Sisters Catholic Charity Victimized By Obamacare,” “Christians Sought Out, Murdered in the Kenyan Mall Massacre,” “Judicial

posted 2:41:26am Oct. 07, 2013 | read full post »

How can Christians defend themselves against today's random violence?
So, a crazed gunman opens fire and you’re caught in the middle. How can you survive? Heroes come in all sorts of packages. And they wield all sorts of defensive weapons. Such as guns and Jesus. Sometimes both at the same time. [caption id="attachment_12246" align="alignleft" width="480"] Ant

posted 2:53:48pm Sep. 27, 2013 | read full post »

Does Sunday Morning Church Really Need All This Glitter, Showmanship and Gimmickry?
What’s wrong with church today? Are we in danger of turning worship into a flashy concert? Of watering down the message so nobody is offended? Of forgetting the simplicity of the Gospel? I grew up with a preacher’s kid. He was a fake following in the footsteps of his flimflamming father who d

posted 11:26:20am Sep. 20, 2013 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.