• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ending 'don't ask, don't tell' would undermine religious liberty

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,784
Reaction score
33,981
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Editor's Note: Tony Perkins is President of the Family Research Council and a Marine veteran.

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.

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.


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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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”).

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.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Tony Perkins.
Oh man, the religious right at it's worst.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...-dont-tell-would-undermine-religious-liberty/
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Really?

Possibly some of his concerns may not materialize, but depending on the implementation of the new policies he might be right on some of the concerns he listed.

As a Southern Baptist, I am not permitted to say "homo is OK", because my beliefs teach otherwise. If my career path requires me to profess a belief that homo is OK, then I have a tough decision to make: throw my career out the window or throw my religious beliefs out the window.

For an ordained Baptist or Catholic minister who is a Military Chaplain, the choice is even more stark: repudiate the teachings of the church which ordained him, or risk running afoul of military policy or even the UCMJ? They already have enough trouble, what with the military trying to forbid Christian Chaplains from publically praying "in Jesus' name".

Possibly his concerns are overblown; I certainly hope so. I think denigrating him for airing them is in poor taste.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
11,909
Reaction score
6,155
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Goshin said:
If my career path requires me to profess a belief that homo is OK, then I have a tough decision to make: throw my career out the window or throw my religious beliefs out the window.
That's the entire point.
 

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
790
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As a Southern Baptist, I am not permitted to say "homo is OK", because my beliefs teach otherwise. If my career path requires me to profess a belief that homo is OK, then I have a tough decision to make: throw my career out the window or throw my religious beliefs out the window.
A. NO employer or "career path" can "force" you to "throw your religious belief out the window." That kind of crap is against the law.

B. In an employment situation where your peculiar brand of biased, bigoted religious discrimination runs counter to the laws of the land, I guess you can go to hell.

And frankly, I don't see a problem with that.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As a Southern Baptist, I am not permitted to say "homo is OK", because my beliefs teach otherwise. If my career path requires me to profess a belief that homo is OK, then I have a tough decision to make: throw my career out the window or throw my religious beliefs out the window.
No need to worry. The military will implement a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy where nobody will ask if you dislike homosexuals, but you will face court martial if your views come out. Its not discrimination, you can still serve, but you aren't allowed to flaunt your beliefs. Unit Cohesion is very important after all, and we couldn't risk unit morale suffering, so just keep quite about who you are. Sounds pretty reasonable right?
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,188
Reaction score
4,822
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'd love to be able to write the guy in the OP off as a kook, but sadly, I could absolutely see that happening. I think it's a good thing that gays will be able to serve openly in the military, but I hope that things won't swing too far the other direction until people who are against homosexuality are being discriminated against.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,721
Reaction score
9,514
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'd bet you're more likely to run across gays if you're in the family research council than in the military.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Possibly his concerns are overblown; I certainly hope so. I think denigrating him for airing them is in poor taste.
Especially when he's the President of the FRC :) There's so much more ammo there
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm sure this guy worried about being forced to say "homo is ok" doesn't have a problem with Muslims in the miltiary being forced to miss daily prayers because it takes too much time.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
As a Southern Baptist, I am not permitted to say "homo is OK", because my beliefs teach otherwise. If my career path requires me to profess a belief that homo is OK, then I have a tough decision to make: throw my career out the window or throw my religious beliefs out the window.
But as a soldier of the United States military you are not employed by God. You adhere to the standards of the United States and that is you are free to practice your religion, as long as it does not impede on the religion of others.

For an ordained Baptist or Catholic minister who is a Military Chaplain, the choice is even more stark: repudiate the teachings of the church which ordained him, or risk running afoul of military policy or even the UCMJ? They already have enough trouble, what with the military trying to forbid Christian Chaplains from publically praying "in Jesus' name".
The Bible doesn't say that you cannot serve with a Homosexual. It just says that you cannot be a homosexual.
Possibly his concerns are overblown; I certainly hope so. I think denigrating him for airing them is in poor taste.
My concern is that those who use religion as an excuse to be intolerant of others are completely blinded to what is really happening here.

A homosexual feels that he/she is subpar for the role. The role is to defend his/her country, and thereby his/her family. I find banning homosexuals from military service is not just morally reproachable, but disallowing a man or woman to defend their country and their family.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,474
Reaction score
32,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
recalls the opposition to the desegregated military in 1948
biggoted white folks insisted it was not right. it was against their religious views
how did that work out
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well...

It's not like I didn't know (because I did), when I suggested that maybe, just maybe the guy in this article isn't some total kook bigot and that maybe, just maybe some of his concerns might be somewhat valid... that I was going to get attacked by the pirhana pack.

Yup, nice to see everyone on the "other side" being so tolerant and accepting and reasonable and all.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well...

It's not like I didn't know (because I did), when I suggested that maybe, just maybe the guy in this article isn't some total kook bigot and that maybe, just maybe some of his concerns might be somewhat valid... that I was going to get attacked by the pirhana pack.

Yup, nice to see everyone on the "other side" being so tolerant and accepting and reasonable and all.
If you're suggesting we have to be tolerate of intolerance, then I'm going to have to ask you tolerate my intolerence of bigots.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A. NO employer or "career path" can "force" you to "throw your religious belief out the window." That kind of crap is against the law.

B. In an employment situation where your peculiar brand of biased, bigoted religious discrimination runs counter to the laws of the land, I guess you can go to hell.

And frankly, I don't see a problem with that.
Exactly. It's a false delima. No law or anything can make anyone think homosexuality is OK. And allowing them to marry, to behave contrary to your beliefs isn't harming your beliefs, but allowing them theirs. Of all the arguments against rights for homosexuality, and there are some silly ones, this one always strikes me as perhaps the silliest.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not like I didn't know (because I did), when I suggested that maybe, just maybe the guy in this article isn't some total kook bigot and that maybe, just maybe some of his concerns might be somewhat valid... that I was going to get attacked by the pirhana pack.
You defended a bigot making a laughably transparent excuse for prejudice. His claims aren't valid, and his reasoning is horribly flawed. Standing by him will get you flack for good reason.

Yup, nice to see everyone on the "other side" being so tolerant and accepting and reasonable and all.
Tolerance is about accepting something you consider wrong, but recognizing that the persecution is not the right approach. I will never consider it okay to demonize homosexuality, but I would never promote kicking anyone of the military for holding such an view. The military doesn't have to like homosexuality or even consider it moral, but they do have to tolerate it enough not to boot them out without cause.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here is something that has always perplexed me about the OP's line of reasoning. If Christianity holds that sex should be reserved for one man and one woman, in marriage, then why is that homosexuality is any more sinful than straight people who have sex outside of marriage? If the OP has a problem that would keep him from accepting working alongside homosexuals, then he should have the same problem working alongside a straight man who lives with his girlfriend out of wedlock, a situation that is far more pervasive than homosexuality in the military. It's this kind of contradiction that makes this supposedly religiously motivated outrage look like at thin veil for mere intolerance. The simple fact is that the Christian religion encourages respect and tolerance for all kinds, and there is no way that ending "don't ask don't tell" will interfere with the practice of mainstream Christians in any way.
 

The Uncola

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Oh my! Will the inhumanity never end? :roll:

The religious bigots might be prevented from spreading their sickening, evil brand of hatred in our military.

Out-freakin'-ragess.

Is there nowhere left for homophobes to show there idiocy without consequences in this Nation?

Utterly intolerant, I say...


:shock:
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
if your religion supports a bigotry that opposes the liberty of others OUR form of justice says that the bigotry should be suppressed , not Liberty.

The constitution denies the suppression of religious practice, not the privilege to use religion to segregate from participation those against whom any religion holds a bias. In fact 'freedom of religion' clause was intended to END that practice.

geo.
 
Last edited:

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is something that has always perplexed me about the OP's line of reasoning. If Christianity holds that sex should be reserved for one man and one woman, in marriage, then why is that homosexuality is any more sinful than straight people who have sex outside of marriage? If the OP has a problem that would keep him from accepting working alongside homosexuals, then he should have the same problem working alongside a straight man who lives with his girlfriend out of wedlock, a situation that is far more pervasive than homosexuality in the military. It's this kind of contradiction that makes this supposedly religiously motivated outrage look like at thin veil for mere intolerance. The simple fact is that the Christian religion encourages respect and tolerance for all kinds, and there is no way that ending "don't ask don't tell" will interfere with the practice of mainstream Christians in any way.
No kidding. And can you imagine the horror if they had to work with people who took their 'lord's' name in vain? How could they possibly be required to treat those sinners as "normal" people, to treat them equally? The bible says taking 'the lord's' name in vain is a sin, so they can NOT tolerate that kind of behavior. Being forced to treat those people equally removes their religious freedom.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't see why we can't take it by a case-by-case basis. You can't determine an ability to serve just because of an orientation label. There are probably people any of us know that could easily be gay and we'd never know just by looking because they're upstanding individuals who act and seem normal and average, with one glaring, unimportant characteristic.

In other words, this kind of gay man would be more than acceptable in the military:



This one would not:

 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
and it is not like religion does not STILL have the upper hand. it is illegal to refuse someone employment based on their religious beliefs... UNLESS you happen to be a religious group, in which case it is still perfectly fine, even if the job itself has no religious content.

per a recent Supreme Court decision.

poor, poor religionists.

geo.
 

The Uncola

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I don't see why we can't take it by a case-by-case basis. You can't determine an ability to serve just because of an orientation label. There are probably people any of us know that could easily be gay and we'd never know just by looking because they're upstanding individuals who act and seem normal and average, with one glaring, unimportant characteristic.

In other words, this kind of gay man would be more than acceptable in the military:



This one would not:

Only a few slight problems with your nonsense.

1) Just like every other form of sexual preference, it's IMPOSSIBLE to determine what someone elses is by looking at them.

2) The vast majority of crossdressers are heterosexual, not homosexual,

3)The vast majority of homosexuals are not crossdressers.

4) On duty members of the military dress in standard issed UNIFORMS.

Oooops...

.. your silly prejudice is showing.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're all acting as if I said that homosexuality should be illegal, or the military should not accept gays, when I said no such thing.

What I said was that the author of the article might have a point or two, namely that those who feel religiously obligated (not motivated by hate or homophobia, but by religious obligation, assuming any of you can understand that there's a difference there) to view homosexuality as an immoral behavior might find their careers impaired because of that belief. I didn't say they would, I said it was possible depending on how this is implemented.

For the average soldier it may not be such a big deal. All they have to do is keep their mouth shut and their opinions to themselves. Ok, it's not like this is anything unusual in the military already.

But if non-coms and officers are required to go further in actively supporting and affirming homosexuality in a public manner, then yes that could be an issue. Again, it depends on how the new "openly serving" proceedures/protocols are implemented. Perhaps it won't be an issue; I hope it won't, we'll see I guess.

As someone said, at best we get a "don't ask, don't tell if you have religious reservations against homosexuality". :shrug: Okay, that could be tolerable, for most soldiers, noncoms and officers.

What about Chaplains? Is it going to be forbidden for a Catholic chaplain to even mention that the Catholic church considers homosexual activity to be a sin? If so, how is a Catholic Chaplain going to resolve this question of being loyal to the US Armed Forces or being loyal to the Catholic church?

Maybe you say "Well, let him resign and get out of the military then, the intolerant schmuck."

Okay, let's say all the Catholic Chaplains resign, and along with them half or more of the Baptist Chaplains, plus some others. Do you know how many soldiers are Baptist or Catholic? I don't know offhand, but if it isn't close to half I'd be surprised. Would it be fair to deprive half of our armed forces from having the comfort of a spiritual advisor/confessor/minister available?

All I'm saying is that yes, there might be some questions about how all this is going to play out, and at some point those questions might fall under the heading of religious liberty in the military in some sense.

Be sure you understand what I'm saying before you burn me at the stake for bigotry.
 
Last edited:

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't want your opinion on this ID either, middleagedgamer.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The reality is, you can believe anything you want but there are certain things that you simply cannot act on. You can be the most racist piece of crap on the planet but you cannot, no matter how much your beliefs mean to you, discriminate against minorities. You can be a complete misogynist but you're not allowed to discriminate against women. You can believe anything you like about gays, but whether you like it or not, you're not legally permitted to discriminate against them. There's a difference between HOLDING a belief and ACTING on it and if the religious can't figure that part out, they've got issues.
 
Top Bottom