The part I’m focusing on, Kris, is the instruction from the chief to priests NOT to read a letter to the various military parishes.
THAT is government obstruction of religion. It is the government saying that the Pope and his subordinates are not in charge of the Catholic Church, and that is to include the Catholic Church that meets within the confines of the US military.
So, yes, this is extremely new. I’ve never heard of such a thing before.
(I’d of had this back to you more timely but my internet went down so I went away for awhile.)
“The part I’m focusing on, Kris, is the instruction from the chief to priests NOT to read a letter to the various military parishes.
THAT is government obstruction of religion. It is the government saying that the Pope and his subordinates are not in charge of the Catholic Church, and that is to include the Catholic Church that meets within the confines of the US military.
So, yes, this is extremely new. I’ve never heard of such a thing before.”
It would seem I think it’s not new because (focusing on the “Full Title” which is what I have been doing) the military is now doing something they have done for a long time in a general way, while you think it is new because the military is now doing that something in a specific way. I don’t know how to resolve that.
As to “government obstruction of religion”, the article does say “Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter.” That indicates any obstruction was not necessarily on the part of the government as a whole.
As to the UCMJ, (888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.) would you maintain that religious freedom is a sufficient defense? Is the use of such contemptuous words per the UCMJ to be permitted as an exercise of religious freedom?
What about sedition? (UCMJ Art94, (a) Any person subject to this chapter who...with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;) Remember, they thought the original letter (which I have not seen) might have been seditious. Is sedition per the UCMJ to be permitted as an exercise of religious freedom?
Should the military permit everything as long as it’s done as an exercise of religious freedom? All religions?
On a separate but related note, what happened to resigning one’s commission in protest if one disapproved too much of something that was being done?
This is disgusting!...And now he wants to cut combat pay for anyone who is not being shot at...as if the lines were so clearly drawn!