I’ll mail you a hardcopy. Thanks for the interest, and for all else that you do.

Ah, now I remember! I read your book several years ago. Anyway to get a copy of your article?

I did. I have also written a lengthy article in the current issue of St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly entitled “The Problem with Hierarchy: Ordered Relations in God and Man,” which presents, I think, the best “theology of gender” available. The article goes well beyond gender to cover all interpersonal relationships and draws on the theory presented in my 2006 book Eight Ways to Run the Country, a work of political theory.

The problem is the quote you provided is the assumption that military chaplains serving in the military constitutes “support” by government. The non-establishment clause is a restriction on government, not religion, but the author’s reasoning, if taken to it’s logical end, would disallow religion in the public square altogether.

As for DADT, it would be a victory for proponents if the issue could be reduced to one where homosexuality is just a life-style choice with no broader cultural ramifications. The fact that proponents are trying to force the military into more than tacit acceptance of homosexuality by forcing the repeal of DADT however, shows they aren’t satisfied with mere acceptance, but would like to see the military homosexualized. The military should not be a laboratory for social experimentation. The repeal of DADT in other words, is about establishing moral parity for homosexuality in the larger culture (just as the attempt to force gay marriage is).

I am happy to see that you know him, and a man of your stellar erudition, I am not surprised. It is such a blessing to converse with people such as yourself, George. Monomakhos!

Thank you very much for the St. John Chrysostom quote. I will send that to some of my friends. In addition, thank you very much for the correction, as I had known definitely that your last name is Mitchell. I had no idea that you were in the Orthodox Church. Did you also write “The Scandal of Gender?”

Alexis, Hanson is the best writer on military and Western Civilization alive today.

Thank you for the plug, Alexis. “Women in the Military” is still in print, though the author’s name is Brian (Patrick) Mitchell, not R. Mitchell.

On the subject of feminism and sodomy, a good quote to keep handy is:

“O ye subverters of all decency, who use men as if they were women and lead women out to war as if they were men! This is the work of the devil, to confound and subvert all things, to overlap the boundaries which God had appointed from the beginning, and remove those which God had set to nature.” St. John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Titus, NPNF1, 13, 539

RobZ, you raise an interesting point. The problem and others like it already exist. It’s hard to rectify these things in a pluralistic society in the civilian sphere. (One could say: then why add to them?) However the military has always been exempt and labored under a hierarchical system that would be (and should be) intolerable in the civilian sphere.

That’s why Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the right to raise/uphold/mandate/oversee “land and naval forces.” Quite simply, the Congress could enact a statute tomorrow that only homosexuals could serve in the military. (Don’t laugh, it’s an unwritten rule that lesbians are preferred in the military to straight females. You can guess why.) Or only white people, or Christians, etc.

Above examples are somewhat incongruous admittedly. The question is: what criteria should the Congress want for the Armed Forces? The only logical one is “unit cohesiveness,” a good morale, and battle-worthiness. Centuries of experience have told us that all of the above are met when sexuality does not enter in the equation. Even heterosexuality. One of the swords of Damocles that hangs over every subordinate’s head is “am I being sent on this mission so that I can die and the officer gets to have my wife/girlfriend?” The King David/Bathsheba scenario in other words.

And let’s not forget, David’s action (though forgive by God) set in motion a chain of events that almost destroyed his kingdom.

RobZ:

Good point, however, the issue here I think is Natural Law and normalcy. Religion aside, science points irrefutably to the maxim of “opposites attracting.” The aforementioned religions you had mentioned have already established the fundamentals of Natural Law and recognize marriage to be between male and female and all the human problems inherent. They at least have one thing in common, whereas the whole DADT policy is an entirely different animal of its own, turning science and Natural Law upside down.

Thank you very much, George. I would refer you to the great historian and current professor at the University of California, Victor Davis Hanson. He wrote an excellent book called “The Soul of Battle,” focusing on three great generals throughout world history: Epaminondas, William “Tecumseh” Sherman, and General George S. Patton. The basic premise of the book is “that the moral vision they imparted to their troops was as significant as any military strategy. Each general aimed at salvation rather than conquest; and each one led largely untrained forces to striking victory over tyrannical enemies.” I believe that in order to have a “moral vision,” a soldier has to know what moral absolutes are – where to draw the line between what is right and what is wrong. However, a society that continually cultivates a pluralistic relativism in which moral absolutes are being diluted with clouded boundaries, then it births the same type of military and the individuals therein. An effective fighting unit has to be comprised of those conformists of like mind in order to accomplish the mission.

Alexis – I’m not sure how quantitative or analyitical it was; just an observation. 🙂

http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=artGeneral.article_6

Naturally Christians applaud this recognition of the individual’s right to worship and of the importance of faith in all aspects of life. However, the First Amendment also dictates that all religions be treated equally, which means that military personnel from all religions are given accommodation. Christians may be uncomfortable with this idea, since one of the foundational principles of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life. (John 14:6) However, this is a case of all or nothing: if we as Christians wish to exclude other religions from the chaplaincy, then we have to be excluded as well. There can be no bias under the Constitution. If Christianity is given preference over all other religions, then that will be a reason to get rid of the chaplaincy altogether.

Some suggest that eliminating the chaplaincy is actually the best option—better to have no religion supported by the government than all of them! Instead of paid chaplains, these people recommend that ministers in churches help the soldiers. And in fact many churches outside of the bases already do just that through fellowships and outreaches to the military.

So, I’m unclear how ending DADT would impact chaplains in a manner they are not already impacted.

Most of us here have a vested interest in making sure that the colonialist narrative of ghetto Orthodoxy doesn’t succeed in displacing the missionary narrative. But I think that many of us are also worried about the state of our military. It’s the last, best institution in the US, and the same miscreants that have demolished mainstream Christianity, the Academy, and almost everything else, won’t be satisfied until they’ve laid waste to the military.