Skip to content

A Rebuttal To – My Take: Ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would undermine religious liberty

June 1

A Rebuttal To: My Take: Ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would undermine religious liberty

It makes sense that the itching and burning infection of bigotry grows in the dank and moldy brain of a believer.   Obviously being a believer is not a requisite of being bigoted, but it sure does help to have a way of thinking not open to science, modern ethics and fresh air.

Take this essay recently published in the religious blog section of CNN’s website.  It is written by Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, which is a major euphemism if I have ever heard one.  The essay is titled “My Take: Ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would undermine religious liberty“, and the following is my response to it.

Some people think allowing open homosexuality in the military means nothing more than opening a door that was previously closed. It means much more than that. It would mean simultaneously ushering out the back door anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct, whether because of legitimate privacy and health concerns or because of moral or religious convictions.

I wonder what health concerns the author is trying to elude to.  To me it just sounds like the highly contagious form of cooties.  Obviously it is the religious convictions which lead to the previous homophobia.  And a religion which singles out a minority group because they think they are icky, is certainly not moral.  Frankly, at this point, I am already losing respect for the author.

This outcome is almost inevitable, because pro-homosexual activists have made it clear that merely lifting the “ban” on openly homosexual military personnel will not satisfy them.

If this man and men like him have had time to spread their bigoted form of ethics to the military for the last few decades, then yes, solely lifting the ban would seem a bit foolish. I would think there needs to be a little work done to erase these hate filled men’s legacy.

The stand-alone bills that have been introduced to overturn the 1993 law, such as S. 3065, call explicitly for:

“Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs”

While not in the defense authorization bill amendment approved by the House of Representatives and a Senate committee last week, this goal will undoubtedly be accomplished administratively as part of the “necessary policies and regulations” mandated by that amendment.

This means that all 1.4 million members of the U.S. military will be subject to sensitivity training intended to indoctrinate them into the myths of the homosexual movement: that people are born “gay” and cannot change and that homosexual conduct does no harm to the individual or to society.

Well now there is the can of worms.  Where do I begin?  Yes something needs to be done to shift the military population from dogmatic homophobia towards the acceptance of able and passionate human beings that happen to be gay.  Sensitivity training probably won’t even succeed in the effort, but it is a start.

As for the “myth of the homosexual movement”, I am not sure where he gets this.  As a heterosexual person, I have to rely on people I know, and biology.  People are born gay, in a sense, but at the same time not.  Your genes give you a range with different probabilities, your environment carries you to where you end up.  Consider this recipe analogy, think of your genes are the ingredient list, and the recipe directions are your environment.  Your genes suggest a wide range of possibilities as would an ingredient list, it is the execution of the environment that will determine the end result, much like the execution of a recipe’s directions.

The complexity of sexual preference is still very much unknown, but there are some observations that make my point well.  Identical twins are essentially genetically identical.  This is a good study for this idea since the only difference between two identical twins is their environment.   In the general population, most polling groups agree that between 4-7% of people are gay.  But in the case of identical twins, where one twin is gay, 50% of the time the other twin is also gay. This would suggest that their genes made it much more likely for them to become gay, but the environment can still lead the other twin to becoming straight.

Now to go back to my recipe analogy, you can not go back and change your cooking temperature to get a different result.  Once someone has arrived at their sexual preference, it is not possible to change their environment back to when their brain was developing.  And frankly, why would you even want to?   It is inhumane to think sexual preference is something you can change after the fact.

The way these groups suggest it can be, is by unloading religious dogma and guilt onto a person, and guilting them into thinking they are of a different sexual preference.  That concept is revolting to me.

Ok now, one last thing about the “myth of the homosexual movement”.  The author can not just assert that being homosexual is harmful to the individual and to socioty without providing some evidence.  “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Carl Sagan.

Anyone who points to the mountain of evidence to the contrary – or merely expresses the personal conviction that sex should be reserved for marriage between one man and one woman – runs the risk of receiving a negative performance evaluation for failing to support the military’s “equal opportunity policy” regarding “sexual orientation.”

I would like to see that mountain of evidence that suggest being homosexual, simply being attracted to a member of the same sex, is harmful to self and society. I am not even sure how to set up a way of gathering said evidence.

What is disturbing is how the author follows this with hate being a mere personal conviction, which should be protected.  He just personally thinks that only straight married people should have sex, that is all.  The problem is WHO THE HELL IS HE TO SUGGEST THAT?  I could just as easily suggest that hand shaking is only for right handed people who wear wrist watches on their left hand.  This is absurd.

For no other offense than believing what all the great monotheistic religions have believed for all of history, some service members will be denied promotion, will be forced out of the service altogether, or will simply choose not to reenlist. Other citizens will choose not to join the military in the first place. The numbers lost will dwarf the numbers gained by opening the ranks to practicing homosexuals.

The pride of serving in the military in no way is in contradiction to serving alongside gay individuals.  Making an appeal to tradition fallacy does nothing to change this.  And yes, members should be denied promotion if they act in a way not in accordance to the institution which they are a part of.

There is no evidence to suggest that people will stop enlisting because of this issue, I am not sure where the author comes up with this idea.

This pro-homosexual political correctness has already begun to infect the military.

As an ordained minister and a Marine Corps veteran, I was invited to speak at a prayer event at Andrews Air Force Base earlier this year. I had every intention of delivering a spiritual message, not a political one.

I would like to see a ban on ministers in the military, I think that would do a whole lot more for morale than a silly ban on people who are attracted to their own sex.

But the invitation was withdrawn after I criticized President Barack Obama’s call to open the military to homosexuality in his State of the Union address. The base chaplain told me they had received some complaints – about a dozen. I pointed out that orchestrating a handful of calls was a simple task for homosexual activist groups.

First of all good, I am glad your invitation was withdrawn.  Second, yes it would not be difficult to make a complaint.  Does a complaint need to be difficult in order to mean something?

If I was blacklisted merely for supporting existing law, what will happen to those who oppose the new, politically correct law?

You were asked not to say a prayer, please do not try to invoke McCarthy era blacklisting here, or imply that you are never allowed to speak out against the president.

Those most likely to suffer are military chaplains. While some in the ranks will simply choose not to exercise their First Amendment rights in order to preserve their careers, this is not an option for chaplains. Their ministry is to proclaim the moral and theological teachings of their faith.

Hate speech sponsored by the U.S. military is not protected by the 1st amendment. The 14th amendment tells us that.  I really do not care if military chaplains claim to suffer from this change, it is the soldiers I am thinking about.  The chaplains are just dead weight anyway.

But under the new regulations, will they be free to preach from the entire Bible? Or will they be forced to excise the many passages declaring homosexual conduct to be a sin?

They will be asked to refrain from reading speech from their cult manifestos that infringe on the rights of any group within the military, period.

In their counseling role, military chaplains assist all service members who come to them, even if they are of other faith traditions. But if a homosexual seeks counseling regarding his personal relationships, will the chaplain be free to recommend therapy to overcome homosexual attractions? Or will he be forced to affirm a lifestyle that his faith condemns?

It is very scary to think that these fear mongering leaders are around our soldiers during traumatic times in their life, and are authorized to give advice.  It is no wonder they have been so successful brainwashing the military.  And no, a chaplain is no where near competent enough to offer advice about sexual orientation or to imply that one way of being is inferior.

While chaplains are members of the military, they must be “endorsed” by a sponsoring religious body. Denominations that are unequivocal in holding to a biblical standard of sexual morality may stop endorsing military chaplains rather than allow them to compromise their principles.

Good, the separation of church and state in every facet is important.  I would love to see the end of “military chaplains”.

This may result in a chaplain corps that has plenty of Unitarian ministers and homosexual Episcopal priests, but a shortage of clergy to minister to the largest religious groups in America, such as Roman Catholics (whose catechism declares that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”) or Southern Baptists (whose Baptist Faith and Message declares that “Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography”).

I think the ministers should try to end pornography in the military, that would be hilarious.

It was religious liberty that drew the Pilgrims to America and it is religious liberty that leads off our Bill of Rights. But overturning the American military’s centuries-old ban on homosexual conduct, codified in a 1993 law, would mean placing sexual libertinism – a destructive left-wing social dogma found nowhere in the Constitution – above religious liberty, our nation’s first freedom.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Our nations first freedom, is the freedom from the governments endorsement of religion. If a soldier wants to practice his or her religion, the government should stay out of his business, that is unless it infringes on anyone else’s rights.  Please Sir, do not imply otherwise.  Keep your musty mildew ridden dogma out of my face, and out of the military.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: