I must assume the meeting took place today (Thursday, 23 July). I'm not absolutely sure it did because I was not there. Whether or not I would have been there had I directed my email not to DOD but to the specific Congressmen, Lamborn and Collins, is hard to say except that I don't believe either man would have welcomed me. Why?
Simply because these Congressmen's position is not simply untenable with regard to the Constitution, it reflects an almost laughable -- but dangerous nonetheless -- political position, one I would have exposed "in their midst," so to speak. That position in its essence is this: military chaplains have the right, indeed the responsibility, to use their position in the military to recruit disciples for their particular brand of religion, which in this case is a very narrowly-based fundamentalist approach to Christianity.
Sane and sober people would laugh, as I said. But these members of Congress, by their very own arguments, are not sane and sober; instead, they are advocates for a militarized Christianity which sees members of the military as vulnerable, easy-to-convince, much-needed "warriors for Jesus." All that's necessary, therefore, is to deliver them the "word," and that is the task of military chaplains. Indeed, it is their primary task, and as such any interference with the execution of that task - interference such as the MRFF registers almost daily - should be strictly and forthwith forbidden by DOD.
Since I was a member of the US Army for 31 years and thus am still a very sincere advocate of its continued good order and discipline, as well as Constitutional propriety, I do sincerely wish I had been at the meeting that, for me, never was.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
