The conundrum continues

Someone (I believe strongly it was my mother) once told me two wrongs don't make a right.

In that spirit, I write this one. Here's the story as reported on Fox News, which is somewhat (really) biased from time to time as is the other side (MSNBC, CNN).

A Navy chaplain is suing because he is facing the end of a 19-year career because of his faith-based views on marriage and human sexuality.

But that's not the thing for me. According to Wesley Modder's attorneys, again a biased source, he was told to stop offering prayer in the name of Jesus.

This whole thing started last December. An openly gay officer at the Naval Power Training Command in South Carolina allegedly took offense at Modder's views on homosexuality. The chaplain, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God, was accused of discrimination and failing to show tolerance and respect -- among other things.

There's the issue there of how Modder relayed his views, particularly to an officer. That's not going to go away, and it will be a real issue for Modder.

But, here's the deal this morning. If we are reaching a stage where one can be told how to pray in the service of one's duties, even in the government based armed forces, I have some real issues here. It would be like accepting a chaplain into the military and telling him or her which religion she should espouse. That's a far reach.

If we've reached a stage where government is going to tell citizens of its country what it can and cannot believe, say, act on, then we've got severe problems. As I read the constitution, it is supposed to be freedom of religion, not freedom from, nor freedom to be all religions to all people all the time or none at all.

I get that one needs to be able to minister to each and every one of the officers and non-officers the chaplain comes in contact with, and I get that includes those who don't believe or are of another faith entirely. I get that.

But one, as a chaplain, takes an oath to the God of one's own choosing first before one takes an oath to the government. That is the only way that works.

According to Modder, one view of two sides of this issues I remind you, he came under scrutiny by a gay officer working as a temp in his office. The officer never revealed to Modder that he was both gay and married to a man. The officer sought other sailors who were counseled by Modder and got them to complain about Modder's counseling on homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. Modern insisted he only counseled them based on his deeply held religious beliefs and according to the tenets of his endorsing denomination and must agree to counsel according to the teachings of that denomination.

If this happened during counseling sessions, this is an even bigger problem, for if Modder was punished for counseling advice based upon beliefs in scripture and has been consistent with that advice, well, frankly it is none of the military's business.

Here's the deal: As we go forward with these deeply emotional and deeply important contrary views on this subject, we're going to find out I'm afraid that discrimination is a word that will swing both ways to both sides. One person's belief is another's discrimination, even if the other's view is given in love. It's a problem we're not close to solving.