Skip to main content

View Diary: Pentagon Assures Anti-Religious-Freedom Coalition That Rumor THEY Started Isn't True! (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  • the part I bolded upthread: (0+ / 0-)
    And my point was regarding the principle of using religion as an excuse for bigotry in the context of the military
    Let that sink in for a little bit before you reply.   I really don't care whether all SBC members today are racists assholes like they were until just a few decades ago.   My point was regarding the context of the diary - which was the use of bigoted religious views as an excuse to treat certain military members poorly.

    But since we're on the topic of the SBC, it's very interesting that denying a mixed-race marriage will only get you a polite, non-binding rebuke, while merely attending a same-sex wedding (much less performing one) will get you booted out of the SBC in a binding fashion.

    Just to be clear, this is the SBC's new policy for any SBC chaplain:

    Restrictions — The guidelines state that “NAMB-endorsed chaplains will not conduct or attend a wedding ceremony for any same-sex couple, bless such a union or perform counseling in support of such a union, assist or support paid contractors or volunteers leading same-sex relational events, nor offer any kind of relationship training or retreat, on or off of a military installation, that would give the appearance of accepting the homosexual lifestyle or sexual wrongdoing. This biblical prohibition remains in effect irrespective of any civil law authorizing same-sex marriage or benefits to the contrary.” Chaplains are also prohibited from participating in jointly-led worship services “with a chaplain, contractor or volunteer who personally practices a homosexual lifestyle or affirms a homosexual lifestyle or such conduct.”

    I wonder if it's OK for SBC folks to shake hands with gays or are they afraid Teh Gay will rub off on them?

    And it seems the SBC chose wisely when they picked a black guy who just happens to be a really ignorant homophobe....someone so dumb and homophobic that he blames missile testing in North Korea on same-sex marriage in the US.    Seriously, who would hire a moron like that?    At least he's black so it's not like the SBC are racists or dumb bigots or anything......

    •  Your deflection is duly noted. (0+ / 0-)

      Let's move on to your other comments:

      My point was regarding the context of the diary - which was the use of bigoted religious views as an excuse to treat certain military members poorly.
      How, exactly, will it treat a military member poorly if a chaplain of any denomination demurs from performing rites that conflict with the chaplain's personal faith?

      Before you answer, consider that that 196 denominational groups are currently accredited as DoD chaplain endorsers.

      Here's your quick answer - no, it does not.  We don't expect Catholic chaplains to perform Jewish rites, we don't expect Jewish chaplians to provide Catholic catechism, we don't expect Muslim chaplains to bless a non-halal meal...the best description of military chaplaincy I've ever heard was "pastor to all, minister to some."  I spent many years talking and worshipping with Protestant chaplains in the Army, and I never had reason to know their deonomations; that's how it's supposed to be.  Military chaplains have never been expected to provide one-stop faith services for whatever faith a given service member may practice.

      It's absolutely a tightrope, and the repeal of DOMA/DADT will certainly make the task difficult for many chaplains from conservative denominations, but the military has always allowed its chaplains to "minister to all" in the general sense while "pastoring to some" in their particular faith. That doesn't mean that an individual chaplain should be compelled to act against their personal faith; in fact, the First Amendment would seem to prohibit such an action by the government.  

      Now, when push comes to shove, I think the SBC will lose on this issue - and they should.  The current DoD directive for chaplaincies specifically states that:

      Religious Organizations that choose to participate in the Chaplaincies recognize this command imperative and express willingness for their Religious Ministry Professionals (RMPs) to perform their professional duties as chaplains in cooperation with RMPs from other religious traditions.
      The SBC's stipulation that its endorsed chaplains are prohibited from "conducting a service jointly with a chaplain, contractor or volunteer who personally practices or affirms a homosexual lifestyle or such conduct" will be in direct conflict with DoD directives as soon as either LGBT clergy or clergy from LGBT-welcoming denominations take part in chaplaincy activities.  The SBC doesn't get to make that call.

      This may well provoke SBC chaplains to follow COL Wagoner's example and seek endorsement from other Baptist groups, or resign their individual commissions/chaplaincies; it may even push the SBC to leave the chaplaincy program altogether.  I'm OK with any of those outcomes.

      The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

      by wesmorgan1 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 08:53:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As you noted, chaplains are already free to deny (0+ / 0-)

        services to anyone outside their own faith.    So this bill isn't at all about the religious freedom of chaplains but rather the right of Christofascists to proselytize and for bigots to denigrate gays and women in military settings other than a chapel.    That's where my question about the historically racist religious views of the SBC fits in, and how they can just as easily be justified with the same excuse of "religious freedom."

        You seem a bit confused as to what the diary topic is and what the Fleming and the Jones Amendments are all about.   Maybe you should read the ACLU's brief so that you understand the issue better?

        •  No, I understand the issue quite well. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm in complete agreement on that point - military chaplains exist to provide religious counsel and service to those soldiers who desire it, not to proselytize or evangelize their particular faith.

          My sole objection was to the gratuitous attack in which you suggested both current institutional racism and a specific institutional bias against mixed-race marriage on the part of the SBC,   Neither attack is supportable to any significant degree.

          The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

          by wesmorgan1 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 05:49:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then you misunderstood my comment. (0+ / 0-)

            The fact is that there are still racist SBC churches (and they haven't been expelled from the SBC).   No doubt there are still racist Mormon churches too, and other Baptist (or Christian Identity) churches which are explicitly white supremacist and which split from the SBC in 1995.    The SBC is just a convenient handle for discussion because most people know that it was explicitly founded to support slavery and white supremacy and only recently changed those odious policies.

            The point is that the Fleming Amendment would give members of those racist churches in the military the same ability to act contrary to good order and discipline which it would grant homophobes.

            If you don't like people using the SBC as a convenient symbol for racism maybe you should make your 1995 policy mandatory in the same way that the new homophobic policy is mandatory?    At least that would be a start although it still wouldn't erase the incredibly racist history of the SBC.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site