Navy Chaplain fired over his religious views

SFC (Anonymous): And the whole incident happened in 2015, he was not fired (just threatened to be fired) and was found to have provided substandard performance. This did not meet the gross negligence or complete disregard of duty standard in order for him to be fired. But this is now becoming an issue because something, something, something is coming for religious leaders, people of faith, something, something... to stir up the masses that Satan/Democrats/heathens/left wing radicals/BLM/Antifa (sorry but I can't cite every boogie man/woman in this list) is coming to take away their religious freedoms. Meh.

SFC Michael Hasbun - I will have to disagree as your taking scriptures out of context – the scripture in Timothy has to do with the Assembly of believers only and your own household – it has nothing to do with your secular profession. Even today in this modern world most men consider themselves the Head of the house and have the final say as to what goes on – it does not mean they don’t talk with their wives and get their input but only that the wife does not make the final decision.
I would also have to disagree with your account of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 being a case of Rape – Let’s compare the differences in verse 25 (which is clearly a case of rape) to Verse 28 (not a case of rape).
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,.... That is, meets with a damsel which is not espoused to a man; and lay hold on her, and lie with her, - this is a yielding by the woman and not expressive of rape as seen in Deuteronomy 22:25 where the word “Force” is used denoting rape.

Verse 28 is like you laying hold on your girlfriend or wife and laying with her – did you just rape her? I think not – you probably obtained her consent by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exodus 22:16 but not without her consent.

Verse 25 would be rape – verse 28 would be consent (hence him paying a dowry).

LT Charles Baird - what the writers of the bible intended is irrelevant. Ignoring the fact that they're all long dead and all we have now is opinions and guesses as to intent, all that matters is what it can be used to rationalize.

There's a reason why the Christian faith alone has several thousand different versions of itself, with just as many different bibles. It's all subjective and up for interpretation. You have one opinion on the bible, so do millions of other people. You are all equally right, and equally wrong.

SFC Michael Hasbun - I am sorry you feel that what the writers intended is irrelevant - yes there are a lot of opinions as to the intent but that is because for some reason when people read the bible they forget how to use basic grammar - they skip over semi-colons and commas and periods and they don't follow what the bible says about studying it in Isaiah 28 - precept must be upon precept; line upon line; here a little and there a little (paraphrased).

You are correct that there is a reason the Christian faith has several thousand different versions - that is because they all stem from the Roman Catholic Church and although they broke away during the protesting time (hence protestant) they still follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - mainly Sunday (SUN) Worship - which goes all the way back to Babylon with Nimrod.

I do see your point just wanted to give my view - thank you for your time.

But he didn’t

MSgt Seth Trent - Of course he didn't . . . That's why I called it a "hypothetical" . . . But my question is, if he did, would it be despicable if he was fired? What I'm trying to get at is, many here seem to assert that, because he was just sharing what he believed, he should have been fine . . . But what happens when what he believes is no longer in accord with what our Society in general, and our military in particular, believes? (Because, though I'm not familiar with exactly what happened in our chaplain's case, that seems to be the case here) . . .