Threatening our liberties
My colleague Tony Perkins has just been banned from addressing the Andrews Air Force Base prayer luncheon. His invitation has been withdrawn. Tony is president of the Family Research Council. He’s a Christian minister. And he’s an honorably discharged veteran of the Marine Corps. None of this mattered. Tony had spoken out in favor of retaining the law against homosexuals serving openly in the military. That was enough to get him banned.
Let’s see where this is leading us. Tony spoke in favor of current U.S. law. It’s a law that was passed overwhelmingly by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton). That law has been upheld in court. Tony’s position could hardly have been more mainstream. And he had no plans to discuss that law at his prayer luncheon talk. None of this mattered. He was banned all the same.
All members of the U.S. military take an oath to support the Constitution. Tony took that oath, too. But some people in the military get away with openly flouting their oath. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused Fort Hood shooter, spoke out in favor of jihad for years. He was coddled while he openly expressed disloyal sentiments. He violated his oath to support the U.S. Constitution every day he was in the service. All the while, he was receiving full pay and allowances. A politically correct version of diversity protected him from the discipline that should be imposed on all active-duty service members.
Loyalty is fundamental to military life. Maj. John Key, who served in the Union army during the Civil War, was the grandson of Francis Scott Key, who wrote “The Star-Spangled Banner.” When Maj. Key was overheard making disloyal statements after the Battle of Antietam, he was summoned to the White House. President Lincoln asked him point blank: Did you say these things? Key had openly expressed his view that Gen. George McClellan did not actively pursue the retreating Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee because the federal army did not want to defeat the rebellion. Key said the military on both sides of the Civil War wanted to have a draw so they could force the civil authorities in Washington to accept a negotiated settlement.
When Key admitted those were his views and that he had spoken those words, Lincoln said, “You’re through.” He dismissed Key from the Army. Two years later, after Key’s own son had died bravely defending the Union, John Key begged the president to allow him to rejoin the ranks. Ex-Maj. Key wanted only to risk his life to serve his country. Lincoln was touched by the poor man’s change of heart, but he was immovable. Loyalty to the Constitution had to be upheld.
The issue of repealing the current law concerning gays in the military will not simply be a matter of ordering our military to recruit openly homosexual members by quota; it will threaten the liberty of hundreds of thousands of those currently serving in our all-volunteer force.
Consider the thousands of military chaplains who come from Jewish and Christian denominations that regard homosexual conduct as wrong. Are they going to be banned from speaking out? If they criticize adultery and homosexual behavior in their sermons, will they be denied promotion? Will they be ordered to counsel others to accept homosexual conduct? Will they be ordered to “celebrate” homosexuality in the ranks? Chaplains are an indispensable part of our nation’s military readiness. This has been recognized by our military going all the way back to Gen. George Washington.
The current indications are that those who hold to traditional beliefs and values will be silenced—as Tony Perkins has been banned from speaking. This is a most dangerous precedent. The repeal of the current eligibility law would put at risk the retention of thousands of our volunteer soldiers, sailors, and Marines. It also risks driving out many of our military chaplains. It shows how today’s liberalism is anything but liberal.
















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top29 Comments to “Threatening our liberties”
You are absolutely right Ken! This is indeed a “most dangerous precedent”.
No longer surprising though, since most of what BHO and his minions are doing is most dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
Here it comes…
Report comment to moderator
I’m inclined not to invite Anthony Perkins to anything. All those Psycho films gave me the heeby jeebies. Probably true of the organizers here who chose to disinvite him as well.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Sawgunner, for a good laugh.
The truth is the social/religious engineering in the military give me greater concern for my son’s planned service (he is in Army ROTC now) than does the potential physical danger.
Report comment to moderator
How very sad!
Report comment to moderator
I have been saying that when Obama life the ban of gays in the military. They are going to have to write into military law rules on what a chaplains can and can not preach about. For fear of offending the gays in the military.
Report comment to moderator
Sadly, a young medical service corps officer I once served with had charges brought up against him. His ex-wife alleged adultery. It was proven or would have been had the young man not agreed to resign. At a time when young captains experienced with all aspects of leading and training young soldiers in a time of war come at a steep premium, this man was cashiered out.
And because adultery invariably requires other concomitant derelictions, you could argue that his outcome was appropriate.
If we relax the DADT standard (which after all guarantees homosexuals the right to discreetly engage in acts free of prying govt agents) the next step will be to award gay couples the same spousal privileges we now extend to marrieds.
And with two interminable wars waging on the nightly news, who thinks we’ll see a surge of gays rushing to enlist? Hetero troops go downrange and (for the most part) give up regular sexual contact. Can gay men put the mission first and give up sex for 14 mos??
Report comment to moderator
“Please, let’s not gay this thread”
You know it would be said sooner or later, right?
Report comment to moderator
Is this “censorship?” He is allowed to speak; just not invited to somewhere he wants to speak.
Is this persecution? If you think so, you have a very broad interpretation of persecution. Perhaps as broad as homosexuals who think not being allowed to be married is persecution.
I prefer the word harassed. I think the harassment of Christians and the harrassment of homosexuals is about equivalent, and should be kept that way.
I am also wondering if homosexuals should be allowed to kill and be killed in defense of our country. Are we protecting them? Fom what?
Report comment to moderator
“Is this “censorship?” He is allowed to speak; just not invited to somewhere he wants to speak.”
If someone is allowed to write, but his works are not permitted to be published, he is in fact being censored. If someone is not allowed to speak because of his beliefs, even if he was not planning on addressing the controversial topic, he is being censored for that venue. Tony Perkins was invited, then disinvited, precisely because he has voiced an opinion that supports current federal law and military policy, but upsets a few people who disagree with current law and policy.
“Is this persecution?”
Try to pay attention. No one said anything about persecution until you asked.
Report comment to moderator
PC trumps legal.
Report comment to moderator
Well, you wouldn’t want a Christian minister to take a biblical position at a prayer breakfast now would you?
A homosexual is not a kind of person deserving special liberties. Homosexuality is a behavior. Christian ministers are just the sort of people who should be allowed to speak and point this out.
People who do not engage in homosexual behavior are not homosexual. By sanctioning homosexuality, the military is granting an exception for one form of sexual behavior while banning nearly all other forms. How does this make sense?
Report comment to moderator
I forswear any serious romantic involvemt while I was a low-paid young SP4/Sergeant. I’m continually telling folks that although I (and undoubtedly others) were able to go without sex the entire 4 years of my enlistmt, I DO NOT SEE any male homosexual able to forego a behavior/conduct through which they assert their primary identity.
If our law could recognize a fundamental difference between the homosexual male and homosexual female [which makes one a greater risk to unit cohesion than the other] perhaps we could get meaningful reform.
That however is doubtful because the military like it or not has to go along with the PC nonsense that women and men are fundamentally no different and therefore interchangeable for many jobs for which truth to tell they arent.
As I told my friend when we gave blood, no one ever bans a woman from donating blood if she’s ever had sex with a man. But homosexual men are routinely turned away at the blood bank
Report comment to moderator
Congress shall make no law…..
Report comment to moderator
I feel compelled to correct the following blatant errors in Blackwell’s article.
1. Perkins was not “banned”. By using the word “banned,” Blackwell implies that the Air Force took action against Perkins to prevent him from doing something he was otherwise entitled to do. Speaking at an invitation-only event is not an entitlement. Thus, Perkins was not banned. If I don’t invite someone to my house, it does not imply that I have banned that person from my house.
2. The Constitution has nothing to do with whether gays serve in the military. The current policy is the result of a statute. Apparently, Blackwell does not realize that statutes are not a part of the Constitution. One can still uphold the Constitution and believe that a certain statute is bad policy.
3. Perkins is not a “minister” in any traditional sense. He is a former politician who currently serves as a lobbyist for a theocratic organization whose alleged goal is to reclaim the culture for Christ. I’m not aware that he serves under the call of any duly organized religious body. In fact, his theology degree is an “honorary” doctorate. A true minister is one who goes to seminary, learns Greek and Hebrew, and labors under a call…at a minimum. As far as I can tell, Perkins meets none of those criteria.
4. Blackwell’s story about loyalty runs counter to his point. The military has asked Congress to repeal the law. Thus, those high in the chain of command, including the Commander-in-Chief himself, have criticized the law. If Perkins were truly concerned about “loyalty,” he would not have spoken out against the requests of high-ranking military officers on this issue. Perkins’ conduct shows his disloyalty, not his loyalty.
Conclusion: I’m growing tired of the entitlement-oriented attitudes of older evangelicals. For years, the laws of this country granted privilege to evangelicals to the detriment of other social groups. Other groups have now achieved greater equality, and evangelicals want their privilege passes back. Sorry, I’m not sympathetic to you whiners.
Besides, what does it mean to “reclaim the culture for Christ”? Did Christ lose his sovereignty at some point in the recent past? Can he no longer command the winds and the waves? He now needs to rely on slick lobbyists like Tony Perkins to usher in the eschaton?
Report comment to moderator
Statutes are presumed to be constitutional until challenged and ruled otherwise, so yes, the Constitution has something to do with it.
And there is a freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment to that Constitution, so yes, again, the Constitution has something to do with it.
And I am growing tired of lefties who want to silence people and throw our freedoms out with the trash. The Constitution does not give them the right to control what I think, what I say, or what I eat, etc. — not that a lefty has any comprehension of that.
Report comment to moderator
Lots of other countries let homosexuals kill and be killed. I suspect they are just at good at both activities as Christians and as heterosexuals. Just as military people learned to deal with black people in the military, they can learn to deal.
Report comment to moderator
“Perkins was not banned. If I don’t invite someone to my house, it does not imply that I have banned that person from my house.”
RSD: Read carefully. Perkins *was* invited. If you invite someone to your house and then tell him he may not come to your house because he represents, believes in, or agrees with “xyz,” then you have effectively banned him from your house. It is certainly your right to ban someone from your house, but don’t pretend you haven’t banned him.
Report comment to moderator
What, exactly, is wrong with current policy?
Report comment to moderator
I know we have to imagine this decision to ‘ban’ Tony Perkins from a prayer luncheon (!) as taking place in an almost completely dark room, save for one solitary candle flickering in the corner. The camera swoops in and we see three men, clearly marked as members of the US Air Force, huddled around the wavering light.
“Did anyone see you come?” growls Shadowy Figure #1 (SF#1 henceforth).
“I don’t think so,” replies Vaguely Menacing Metaphor Man #2 (VMMM#2). “Down to business. This Perkins fella is preaching a different gospel, boss. Don’t jive with the Official Line.”
SF#1: “Put a stop to this, Comrade. We can’t have any…dissenting opinions.”
MUSICAL CUE: duh duh DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Because, come on. I’m sure it’s not like the person(s) organizing this were possibly just personally offended by The Reverend Tony Perkins’ comments/catch-phrases/buzzwords.
Report comment to moderator
Next week! Barack Obama was just your average fresh-faced young evil dictator from Illinois. But RUH ROH what’s going to happen when he falls in with the wrong crowd? We talked to his minions and got the REAL STORY.
Report comment to moderator
RSD You seem to have a severe difficulty with fact checking. You have so many errors in your post purporting to correct the host of this thread that one hardly knows where to begin in refuting you.
Every one of your corrections were wrong wrong and more wrong.
Are you really that fact challenged? It would seem so.
To wit,
1) form the reading of the letter of disinvitation it is a black listing (as Perkins himself calls it) i.e. a ban.
2)One can still uphold the Constitution and believe that a certain statute is bad policy. But apparently if you stand up for the already existing statute you can be discriminated against. This is rightfully called Fascism.
3) your drummed up definition of a minister is not only bogus but irrelevant.
4) the rest of your post is just nonsense. If you are tired of the issue then stop coming and posting.And especially stop posting ‘facts’ that are not facts.
Report comment to moderator
People who do not engage in homosexual behavior are not homosexual.
Please think about this statement for a minute, Xion. I am heterosexual, as I assume you are – because of my attraction to women.
If I was unmarried, and living chastely, or if I were celibate for an extended period, what would I be? Would I no longer be heterosexual, but somehow asexual? No, I’d be a celibate heterosexual. The basic attraction to, and desire to love and be loved by someone of the opposite sex is still there. I just don’t happen to be acting on it at the time.
Just so, if one is attracted primarily to, aand desires to love and be loved by someone of the same sex, they are in fact homosexual. They may be such and be celibate, or decide to be chaste until they meet and commit to one person. Or not, just as heterosexuals such as ourselves may (too often in the larger culture) choose not be.
You are confusing orientation with action.
Report comment to moderator
#22
To wit,
1) form [sic] the reading of the letter of disinvitation it is a black listing (as Perkins himself calls it) i.e. a ban.
I am offended by the term “black listing” and would like not to see it appear on worldmagblog.
2)One can still uphold the Constitution and believe that a certain statute is bad policy. But apparently if you stand up for the already existing statute you can be discriminated against. This is rightfully called Fascism.
I am offended by seeing people described with the term “Fascism” and would like not to see it applied to people on worldmagblog unless they are card carrying Fascists. Who issues these cards, by the way?
3) your drummed up definition of a minister is not only bogus but irrelevant.
Is there a place where I can take classes in drumming up definitions? Do these classes include bogusing and irrelevanting?
4) the rest of your post is just nonsense. If you are tired of the issue then stop coming and posting.And especially stop posting ‘facts’ that are not facts.
I believe reading worldmagblog on a daily basis satisfied most minimum daily requirements of nonsense. If everyone who posted “facts” that are not facts stopped, there would be almost nothing posted on worldmagblog. How sad and lonely we would all be!
Report comment to moderator
Umm. Can you say “over-reaction”? Perkins was an invitee by the AAFB chaplain’s office. Presumably the chaplain’s office is free to invite whomever they choose. In this case it seems like they wanted someone whose views were not “contentious”. That’s entirely their prerogative.
Report comment to moderator
NJL:
For Blackwell’s statement about the Constitution to be true, the Constitution would have to necessitate the statute. When a variety of Constitutional options exist, one is not “upholding the Constitution” by preferring one Constitutional option of another.
My, if indeed you’re a former 3d Cir clerk, I’d expect you to have better legal reasoning facilities than Monty. But then again, the 3d is no 7th.
Report comment to moderator
Roy Clay,
Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin? If you do, watch out, because you’ve fallen for a major myth of the homosexual-rights crowd, that people fall into two basic categories, homosexual and heterosexual, and you belong in your “camp” even if you never act out that orientation. Can I take that apart?
First off, if homosexuality is a sin, we need to recognize that we never do call people by the name of a sin just because they’re tempted by that sin–only if they act on it. Yes, Jesus called a lustful man an adulterer and an angry man a murderer–but He was using hyperbole. He wouldn’t have expected a court to try the angry man and execute him for murder. We call a person who lies a liar, a person who commits fornication a fornicator . . . but we label someone who is merely tempted by homosexuality a homosexual? Not fair.
In fact, I personally try to avoid using the word “heterosexual” because indirectly it accepts this lie of “two kinds of people.” We do have two kinds of people–male and female. And some of each have committed sexual sins, including adultery, homosexuality, and worse perversions. But just as we don’t have a category called “non-bestialists,” we don’t need one for “non-homosexuals” called “heterosexuals.” When pressed, I’ll say that yes, I’m a heterosexual (though a single, chaste one), but I don’t generally “claim” that word because I don’t want to validate the lie that there are two kinds of people, homosexuals and heterosexuals, and that each kind might as well act out “the way they were made.”
A person who has committed homosexuality is a homosexual (or at least used to be a homosexual, in the case of repentance and change). A person who is tempted by this sin, but has not acted on that temptation, is not. And if that person doesn’t have “heterosexual” desires, that still doesn’t make him a homosexual. I suppose that is part of the problem of the word, also, that in forcing a person to “choose” (and validating both choices), we are saying that a person who doesn’t have strong desires for the opposite sex can’t call himself a heterosexual, and if he does have some sorts of desires for his own sex, ta-da, he’s a homosexual. No, no, no–a person might have any range of “desires,” from normal libido to weak libido to some lust for his own sex. But if he has not fed that lust, has not acted on that lust, calling him a homosexual is using the wrong word.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote in #27. I have often wondered at this use of labels.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name 03.03.10 AT 9:21 PM
Just as military people learned to deal with black people in the military, they can learn to deal.
Del. Emmett Burns (a Black Democrat from Maryland) said it best: “I cannot hide my color. Gays and lesbians can hide their relationships.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Lawmakers-battle-over-gay-marriage-86609752.html#ixzz0hLyHHNcS
So, enough with this condescending “gay rights = civil rights” lunacy.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's blogs to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!