By being a Air Force officer, somebody assumes the duty of obeying military rules. There are military rules against publicly saying the policies of your service are wrong and rules against publicly saying that your fellow officers are unfit to perform their duties.
WTF?
Those are non-sequiturs.
That’s about as cornea joke as you’ve ever come up with. 
My problem with the just-war argument is that, quite simply, most wars aren’t. Even most wars that the U.S.A. participates in. You can’t trust the leaders of this world to go to war for just reasons. If you sign up for the military, you’re providing support for whatever war the leaders get involved in during your hitch.
My problem with the pastoral justification is that if Christians aren’t in the military, then no pastoral care of Christians in the military is needed either. And the reasons given in the previous paragraph serve equally well as reasons why Christians really shouldn’t be in the military. Once you’re there, you’re part of the infrastructure that enables the killing of people that God doesn’t want dead.
And while I’m looking at this from a specifically Christian POV (because that’s what I am), I’d guess that this logic applies to other faith traditions as well.
I guess. That’s why I see a lot of N.A.S.A. abbreviations :rolleyes: If you ask the United States Air Force what it’s abbreviation is, they will tell you USAF. Now excuse me, because I have some S.C.U.B.A diving to do.
Sounds like the type of pastor who’s a little too eager to protect his position as the true leader of the flock.
“Follow not those pretenders, my children. I shall lead you in the light.”
I don’t understand what he’s getting at with “it exposes their rebellion” in his 1st point, nor the distinction between his 1st and 2nd points.
As for the 3rd point, “should be” and “could be” sound awfully cagey in a “not saying just saying” sort of way.
Seems like he’s just trying to appear persuasive by making a list out of a whole lot of not much.
I think you just started one.
Seems pretty blatantly chauvinistic and homophobic to me. (Don’t know about Czarcasm’s claim of racism.)
Also seems like he’s deliberately undermining a superior officer.
I think defending his douchebaggery of the grounds of religious freedom is a bit dodgy.
He’s free to believe what he likes.
He believes the bible says women shouldn’t serve in the priesthood or whatever.
But here’s the thing. The female chaplain has already been ordained and appointed by someone else. And that is out of his jurisdiction. That can’t be changed by his belief. All his words are doing is undermining the position of the female chaplain/officer.
In my view, he’s not so much trying to preach a religious doctrine that he feels is important to the salvation of the congregation as he is pushing his personal prejudices against a fellow officer and chaplain because of her gender and sexual orientation and trying to turn others against her in the process.
What a douchenozzle.
Give the douchenozzle a Dishonorable Discharge and see how he likes it.
Good to know, I thought it was only Reform that accepted female Rabbis but I guess time marches on.:smack:
So let us say there was a Orthodox Chaplain. And he had some Talmudic arguments that only men should be Rabbis. If he posted said arguments on a blog, should he be court martialed?
If he is refusing to provide guidance and comfort to people who did not are homosexuals that is one thing but it does not matter if he thinks people in the military are sinful.
Gay bashing to me means to advocate violence against gays. If it means criticizing gay people then he may have done that.
It’s not just a matter of refusing to provide guidance and comfort to homosexual service members, but rather how much he would allow his personal beliefs of homosexuality = sin influence the kind of counseling a homosexual service man or woman would receive. For example, depressed air man or woman doesn’t need to hear about gay conversion therapy when they actually need therapy for PTSD. The posts this chaplain has made seriously question how well he can do his job and treat service personnel of different faiths objectively (and as a military chaplain objective is his job).
If he said that only Orthodox Jewish Chaplains should be men, it would be ok. If he denigrated women by saying that they shouldn’t allowed to be chaplains at all and in addition questioned whether a homosexual female general is fit to be head of the Academy, he should be court martialed.
Perhaps there’s more on the website (which is rather biased it appears), but the Ops cites: “I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well:
“First, women are not called to be pastors, and since a chaplain is supposed to be a pastor in uniform—it exposes their rebellion.
“Second, the office is permitted for men only, and women are prohibited from teaching (1 Timothy 2:12).
“Third, people should be very worried when they see women pastors/chaplains teaching. Why? It could be God’s judgment upon them (Isaiah 3, “…and women rule over them”)!”
Did not seem that bad. Other things imputed to them from that cite do seem over the line, admittedly.
Other than the explicit sexism, but I guess that’s okay because Jesus.
I guess it depends on who you are how bad that seems. (Whose ox being gored? In this case it was mine. I mean. You know what I mean.)
I’m torn, because I don’t approve of that. You should be able to able to say that any organization you are part of is wrong, except when you are explicitly acting as a representative of that organization.
But, at the same time, bigotry is wrong, and I support anything being done to stop it (as long as it will work and isn’t itself more immoral.)
I guess the latter is more immoral, so I support this. But, if it was someone earlier saying “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is wrong” (back when it was policy) then I would not support it.
Comparative morality, I guess. It’s about which is more wrong.
So she was born that way. That puts the conversion argument about GAYNESS IS LEARNED FROM THEM QUEER SCOUT LEADERS in doubt. At least for this guy
The RCC doesn’t have female priests but also doesn’t ban women from teaching, which these guys would. Not only are we allowed to teach in schools, and catechesis, but even on occasion we may be called to teach during Mass. These are the kind of guys who make Opus Dei look leftist.
Or Mohamed. Or several others. Male dominated priesthood has been a thing for a 1000 years or more and it’s only recently begun to change.
The USA didnt get it’s first female rabbi until 1972, Female Imams are rare as well as Hindu.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the largest church in the movement, still restricts its priesthood to men, as do most of the other Latter Day Saint denominations.
In Shinto, female priests are allowed, but remain rare.
So, “because tradition”.
But it’s changing.
There is no reason to assume that he is bad at his job because he has controversial opinions. If he counseled someone with PTSD for something other than PTSD then that would be bad, but he has not done that. That is all hypothetical. It would be like firing all Rabbis because they might spend all the counseling time talking about kosher food instead of performing their duties.
It is perfectly alright to fire someone for not doing their job, but not for expressing an unpopular opinion.