I think it would be more accurate to say the Episcopal church. The Anglican church in the U.S. (CANA) is a different branch that reports to an African archbishop, and is far more traditional/conservative.
Good for him! All religious leaders should join him in condemning a petulant act by our spoiled brat president that cannot be enforced and rules out folks who are and can be good soldiers.
Folks, this is PRECISELY WHY mainline churches are hemorrhaging members left and right.
TSCC is licking its chops over this, and polishing up its mission force for new fish to reel in. Question is, will most people overlook the peculiarities and cult-like rituals the Morg is known for so they can stay away from political activism masquerading as religion?
Bravo to this denomination which does not hide behind some obscure or non existent scripture to project a claimed rightness, but instead takes a humane position. I don't see this as political activism but a valid projection of real Christian values. They have real integrity, something missing in the president whose knee jerk reaction was to throw those he vowed to support under the bus in order to get his spending for his border wall.
They have places to go. People who feel that the Episcopalians have gotten too liberal can go to the Anglican church. ELCA Lutherans can go to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, WELS, or 40 other sub-denominations. Presbyterians can go to an Evangelical Presbyterian church. There are lots of choices -- something for everybody.
I left the Morg and joined the Episcopal Church. If we lose people by doing what is right and just, so be it. Jesus didn't ask if what he was doing was going to get him more followers.
BTW - a person can disagree with the Presiding Bishop on this or any other point and remain a member in good standing or even a leader in the Episcopal Church. But the Presiding Bishop is elected and probably expressing what the vast majority of us also think. We are grown ups and welcome the discussion.
The Morg and fundamentalist churches are also losing younger members at a fast rate precisely because they are so stuck on their backward stance on matters related to LGBT rights.
Regardless of sexual status or preferences, the tax payers should never have to pay for a soldier to have elective surgery and expensive elective treatments. In addition, time off for elective surgery should never be granted to a soldier unless it fits within their standard vacation allowances. They sign up to serve, not to use their military service to have the tax payers fund expensive elective surgery and elective treatments. This policy should be applied equally to all soldiers, regardless of the soldier's sex or sexual preferences. From what I have read, the operation and treatments required to change your sex is hugely expensive and well beyond the financial capabilities of the average soldier, if the government refused to pay for it.
Expensive elective surgeries and elective medical treatments are currently luxeries for the wealthy. It's immoral to expect the tax payers to pay for these luxeries for any soldier that wants them and can't pay for it themselves. This isn't about discrimination. It's about fairness and equity. Use that money to save the lives of American vetrans who served their country and who are currently dieing, while waiting for medical care that the VA hospitals are denying/delaying them.
azsteve, the US military spends far more on erectile disfunction medication than it does on transgender treatment, including surgery. Why is a soldier's ability to get a hard enough penis to perform sexually more important? This is not a choice between treatment for soldiers at the VA vs. gender reassignment surgery for enlisted soldiers. The world is not that black and white.
Trump, his advisors, and those who support them may have painted this as an economic or functional decision. However, the people in his administration who oppose this are not concerned with finances. They don't believe being transgender is a real thing b/c, as they put it, god created Adam and Eve (male and female). These people live in a black and white world where there are only two options: good/evil, right/wrong, god/satan, male/female, christian/heathen, etc. The reality of the world is that there is a lot of in-between. Some questions have no clear right or wrong. Some people do things that are both very good and very evil. Some things are murky with no clear right or wrong answers.
We've lived with the idea of male/female for so long that we don't realize the amount of biological life that exists in the in-between. Many species may adapt if there are not enough males or females present to perpetuate the species. Many animals exhibit signs of being simultaneously male and female. Many animals engage in autoerotic stimulation. many species engage in homoerotic relationships or homoerotic stimulation. This is not just a human construct.
Let's not be reductive here. Humanity is complex and not all choices are either/or. I think the US military can serve the needs of all service members. I certainly see evidence that Trump's military ban for transgender service people is a reaction to conservative factions who are uncomfortable with the existence of trans people and want them to disappear from public life.
Go ahead, flame me. I've developed a tough skin. But I really don't want to know what any religious figures think of the ban one way or the other. My own religion has condemned it and I respect that as our tradition seeks to stand on the side of love.
But I want to know what military leaders and personnel who serve with them think of it. So far, I've only seen the statements from the generals who condemn it. And if that is the overwhelming response, then yes, I fully support them condemning it. But I'd like to hear from the people who actually (if they exist) convinced the Commander in Chief that it needed to be banned, their reasoning, and what the general consensus of service men and women who are in the trenches think of the issue.
I don't care about the cost compared to Viagra, I just want to know what facts both sides are basing such a decision on. If there have been issues because of it, what are they?
Good luck with that. The decision didn't come from the military -- in fact, the Pentagon was caught completely by surprise by it, and doesn't support it. The people who convinced Trump on this are his close-knit alt-fact "advisers" and some evangelical folks he's been talking to.
It's a non-issue as far as the military is concerned.