The New York Times just published an interview with homosexual advocate Sue Fulton. Fulton is currently serving as the chairwoman of the U.S. Military Academy Board of Visitors. She was a founding member of OutServe, an advocacy group for homosexual soldiers.
In the Times article, Fulton ostensibly claims to believe in the Constitution for "all" and that an organization becomes stronger when the "doors are open to everyone" qualified to do a job, but not for Christians whose view are incommensurate with hers. This is progressive liberalism, not professional leadership.
Here is an excerpt from Fulton's interview:
Question: "The vice president-elect has a position on what he calls religious liberty, which allows citizens to refuse to do business with people with whom they have a sincere religious objection – but this has also popped up in the military, right?"
Sue Fulton's response: "Yes. One estimate indicates that nearly two-thirds of military chaplains identify as evangelistic Christians, and only about 15 percent of service members do. We've had a number of instances in which a gay or transgender troop will visit a chaplain and hear, 'Well, I can't talk to you unless you confess your sin and turn straight or be who God made you to be.'"
TRENDING: Jihad against Christians is due to … climate change?
Fulton is criticizing and categorizing evangelistic chaplains with her self-reporting statement since she failed to substantiate her claim that homosexual service members were turned away from military chaplains who demanded that they become straight and embrace penitence. Fulton's argument is not sound — it appears to be a straw-man. Why is this an issue? Fulton does not prove her position that evangelistic chaplains are a threat to the Constitution. She is only proving that she does not like evangelistic chaplains' beliefs.
To exacerbate the situation even more, Fulton expresses just how much she cares about religious liberty for "all" in her final remarks of the interview, which is subsequent to her previous response in the article:
Question: "That has happened?"
Fulton's response: "Yes! What people fail to understand is that chaplains give up some of their rights as ministers when they become military chaplains, just as soldiers give up some of their free speech to defend free speech. Some chaplains argue: 'My first responsibility is to God.' Well, if your responsibility is to God and not the Army, you need to get out of the Army [emphasis added]. That sounds cold – of course your first responsibility is to God – but you take on these obligations, and if your responsibility to God doesn't allow you to fulfill them, you're in the wrong place."
Fulton's position is clearly unconstitutional, as chaplains do not surrender any rights as ministers when they become military chaplains. Military chaplains are free to exercise their faith, which includes evangelizing, praying in the Name of Christ, and glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. If Fulton argues that chaplains should get out of the military if God is first in their lives, she is establishing a religion over theirs, and violating her own standard of providing for all. She is also sending a message to the populace: that the Constitution only works one way, and that the Defense Department's policy on pluralism is extended only to those with convictions are agreeable to hers. This is not honorable — it is hypocritical.
Fulton's constitutional illiteracy is why she has not conceded in her New York Times interview that the Constitution protects a chaplain's rights to exercise the irreducible tenets of their God-given liberty to yield and obey God as the chief end of man in all matters of faith and practice. In addition, the Constitution protects a chaplain's right from people like Fulton who will attempt to establish her religion over theirs.
Does Fulton believe that only service members with sincerely held theological convictions that are agreeable to hers should be allowed to serve? Fulton's arguments are undoubtedly superfluous, as her emotive response exposes her aspirations of restricting the free exercise of religion to those who openly teach biblical truth that does not comport with hers.
If you are currently serving or aspiring to serve as a military chaplain, do not be troubled by Fulton's diatribe. Military chaplains are free to exercise their God-given rights as their conscience dictates. Title 10 (US Code, Section 8067:H) prohibits a chaplain from performing any duties that are incompatible with his respective endorsing agency expectations, which is why Fulton's argument is ignominious. If Fulton were intellectually honest, she would admit that she does not defend the Constitution for all, but for her agenda, which advocates for immorality – not integrity.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military, or religious organization. Sonny Hernandez wrote this article as a civilian on his own time on an issue of public interest.