ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

February 2, 1943:  the bitter chill of the North Atlantic suffused the dusk as an Allied convoy laden with troops and gear wallowed its way to Europe.  Those who could sleep did so uneasily; German submarines crept about nearby.

The first hour of February 3, 1943 would be the last hour for the transport ship Dorchester.  Minutes after midnight, the ship was gut-shot by a German torpedo.  Dark terror ensued—without power or lights, heaving in the winter seas, the 902 men aboard sought their salvation from the deep.

Only 230 would succeed. 

But from that horror emerged the remarkable story of four Army chaplains who acted with uncommon valor—steadying the panicked troops, guiding them to safety, urging calm amidst the chaos.  As the ship pitched in its death throes, the four handed their own life jackets to troopers who had none, and with that final act of grace they surrendered their lives for the sake of others. 

While the valor was uncommon, the will to serve was not – and the military properly honored the right of all chaplains to serve both as religious leaders and secular counselors.   But sadly, that high regard is now undercut by President Obama imposing open homosexual behavior on the military by repealing the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Now, while the repeal is scarcely a done deal, military officials who prefer political correctness over moral courage began implementing some bizarre changes.  The breaking point came when the Navy ordered its chapels to be open to same-sex “marriages,” in defiance of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

Legislators swiftly responded and the Navy backed off—for now.  But the conflict between the impending military sexual “morality” and that taught by the vast majority of chaplains could no longer be hidden.

Indeed, the conflict prompted rare written protests from the Catholic  and Protestant chaplain endorsing agencies that supply the vast majority of chaplain candidates to the armed forces.

Their protest resonates with the spirit of the four sacrificial chaplains who were willing to serve whatever the cost, reserving only one thing:  “Chaplains have a tremendous moral responsibility to insure that when they preach, teach or counsel, they do so in accordance with their conscience and in harmony with the faith group by which they are endorsed.”

Bluntly put, chaplains cannot and will not sacrifice Christian truths at the altar of President Obama’s sexual politics—a reality that the President had fair warning of.  Now that the warning is becoming reality, Congress must act to protect the faithful service of the Chaplains, lest the military find itself on the wrong side of history in a war of morals.  Do your part and let your Senators and Representatives know of the endorsing agencies’ concerns while there is still time to act!

Visit “Faith Under Fire” to learn more about how the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” threatens religious liberty.

---

 ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

The 1960s blockbuster movie Seven Days in May  recounted a fictional plot by military leaders to overthrow a president who pushed for nuclear disarmament. It is a classic anti-military screed that embodied some of the worst far-left thinking of the sixties.

The movie was pure fiction.  But the leftist thinking behind the movie was unfortunately real.  And as we verge on another May, that bad thinking is incarnated in a real president who is bent on overthrowing the moral standards of our military—standards that have seen this Nation safely through centuries of peace and war.

In May 2011 President Obama will keep after his goal of forcing bisexual and homosexual behavior on the military by repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy—not just so a few individuals may serve, but to enforce the homosexual agenda by force of law and military regulation.  When he rolled the idea out in his inaugural address, it seemed like a done deal. But in the wake of the 2010 elections in which he lost control of the House of Representatives, it is no longer a sure bet.

Recently, House committees have been asking hard questions of some generals and admirals on April 1st and 7th—and much to their shame, those active duty commanders tap danced around the hard truths that were set forth months ago by almost 1200 senior veteran officers—retired flag and general officers who can speak without career fears hanging over them. 

But the commanders’ evasion did not go unnoticed, and now some of the best minds in America are rebelling against this radical “repeal” of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Renowned author and Christian leader Chuck Colson—who once commanded a platoon of Marines—pungently points out that forcing errant eros into the band-of-brothers military culture will have devastating impacts.  Chuck Donovan, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, calls out Congressional and military leaders for indulging in shoddy politics that elevate a wrongheaded “sexual liberty” over real military needs.  And of course, ADF has spoken forcefully on the religious freedom aspects of the issue.

This resistance is good news, and it is growing. One hearing already led to a second, and those inspired these incisive commentaries. And if you act swiftly by letting your Senators and Representatives know today that the repeal is wrong and must be stopped, then this May may bring real hope to our stressed and deeply endangered troops.

---

Visit the “Faith Under Fire” resource page to learn about this important issue.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

 ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

One recent big event on the homosexual agenda has been the so-called “repeal” of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  It’s the key element in President Obama’s plan to force bisexual and homosexual behavior on our troops in the midst of wars in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq.

And it is a fast track agenda:  legislation authorizing the repeal was passed last December by a lame duck Congress—before the House Armed Services Committee even had one hearing on this plan to gut the military’s code regulating sexual behavior—a code that consistently rejected homosexual behavior ever since George Washington was leading America’s army.

But even though the lame ducks passed a law, the deal is not done until sixty days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff formally certify that imposing open bisexual and homosexual behavior on the military will be “consistent” with military readiness, recruiting, and retention.  Until then, the sensible and sound policy that has made America’s military the mightiest in the world will remain effective.

Since the 2010 elections plucked many lame ducks out of Congress, the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee began asking some hard questions about how open bisexual and homosexual behavior hurts the military in an April 1 hearing.  Representative Vicky Hartzler from Missouri was particularly aggressive in her questioning, so that the generals began to dance and dodge rather than squarely answer questions.  But dodging Congressional questions only leads to more questions—so now a House Armed Services Committee hearing has been scheduled for April 7, and more should follow that.

I don’t know all the questions that will be asked, but I know one question that should be asked:  “General, we have seen some startling and disturbing images from Holland—one of the countries that has been held up as a good model of accepting homosexual behavior in its military.  Can you certify that we will not see American soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines behaving the same way if we follow Holland and sexualize our military?”

The answer has to be “no, I cannot,” for military service members still have profound First Amendment protections, and that Amendment will protect even the vulgar, overtly offensive conduct exhibited by many advocates of homosexual behavior. 

Of course, just one “no” probably won’t inspire government officials to tell their boss—the President of the United States—the truth, that imposing homosexual behavior on the military will damage military readiness.  But if Congress now gets serious about this issue, the result should be an official chorus singing the same verse over and over:  “I cannot certify that imposing bisexual and homosexual behavior on the military will have no adverse effect on military readiness.”

After all, dozens of veteran military chaplains already raised serious questions about the adverse impacts on the religious freedom of chaplains and those under their pastoral care.  And those concerns are already being realized, with military trainers telling chaplains to leave the military if they cannot reconcile Christian moral teaching with official endorsement of bisexual and homosexual behavior.

And the respected Center for Military Readiness submitted twenty-five pages of questions to government officials—most of which have so far simply been ignored—but are ripe to be asked by Congressmen who care about American troops.

What to do?  For Christians, it is time to support our troops and chaplains by telling our Senators and Representatives today that it is time to ask the hard questions about how sexualizing America’s military will improve it—before we find American Marines acting as if they were in Amsterdam.

---

Visit the “Faith Under Fire” resource page to learn about this important issue.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

 ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

Last September, sixty-six veteran military chaplains wrote to President Obama, telling him in plain terms that his plan to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would “threaten the religious liberty of chaplains and Service members.” 

These are sixty-six remarkable men—representing centuries of experience. Many had attained high rank; some served in combat; and several bear the scars of combat wounds. All knew that the mission-critical chaplaincy, which provides faith leaders for fellow believers and serves as counselors and friends to all service members, was in peril.

Specifically, the chaplains knew that if the President succeeded in forcing bisexual and homosexual behavior into the military—where it would be treated as an official moral norm—that chaplains would “confront a profoundly moral choice: whether they are to obey God or to obey men.”

The good news is that, even after a smiling President signed the law in December, it cannot be fully effective until several steps are taken—including a certification by senior military leaders that endorsing bisexual and homosexual behavior will have no impact on military readiness.  And that won’t happen before the newly elected House of Representatives can hold hearings on the impacts of eliminating DADT.

We don’t know how that will play out—but it may be that the legislative effort may fail to win the day for the homosexual activists. But, they have a plan B—sue in federal court to strike down the DADT policy.

That is why ADF and its allied attorneys just filed a “friend of the court” brief in the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America case, to inform the court that changing the law will risk the religious freedom of chaplains and service members.  This case, which is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is a direct attack on the law which prohibits open homosexual behavior in the military.

Quoting from the Manhattan Declaration, the brief pointed out that many military chaplains have affirmed that they will not “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships…or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

That stark statement foreshadows open conflict: a military that endorses open homosexual and bisexual behavior can scarcely tolerate chapels on base where homosexual and bisexual behavior revealed to be a grave moral disorder. 

Perhaps that is why military trainers are already telling active duty chaplains that “if they are “unable to reconcile repeal of DADT” with their Christian faith, then they “may request voluntary separation….”  Christians, go home.

Of course, the trainers also talk about how religious liberty will be protected—but that is a flimsy defense, when we see how Christian prison chaplains have been forced to use worship leaders who openly practiced homosexual behavior, and how Christian counselors have been disciplined when they expressed moral reservations about affirming a same-sex relationship.

The moral conflict which was only a warning a few months ago is, unfortunately, becoming reality.  If it does come to pass that DADT fully falls, the conflict will intensify.  But so, too, will the resolve of ADF, its allies, and the chaplains it represents, to defend the God-given, constitutionally guaranteed right of a Christian chaplain to be both a chaplain…and a Christian.

---

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Instead of wrestling with the repeated warnings from chaplains, endorsing agencies, and service members that military religious liberty will suffer if the existing law on homosexual behavior is dismantled, the recent Pentagon “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” report only gives it lip service.

The report, compiled by the Comprehensive Review Working Group, merely acknowledges the problem’s existence and then passes it off by stating that it will not be as bad as predicted, assuming existing regulations protecting religious liberty are followed.

Horribly misleading, to say the least.

Under-Secretary for Defense and Personnel Readiness Clifford Stanley (who is a member of the CRWG) has already rejected such a solution under oath. In his affidavit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates, the retired major general stated that the tear-down would require the changing of “dozens” of regulations, including those protecting the “rights and obligations of the Chaplain corps,” to avoid “significant disruption to the force.” His words echo those of over 60 high-ranking veteran military chaplains who have described the potentially devastating effect of dismantling the law, 10 U.S.C. § 654. These chaplains provided the CRWG with a letter (PDF) that, among other things, described the numerous instances where legally normalizing homosexual behavior has resulted in significant losses of religious liberty.

The report tries to avoid these consequences by stating it does not recommend that abolishing the law be followed by making “sexual orientation” a class that receives non-discrimination protections similar to those for race. But this statement is misleading. While some limited protections granted to classes like race would not be available under the CRWG’s recommendation, the CRWG still recommends ambiguous protections that prevent “discrimination” or “harassment” on the basis of sexual orientation.

This type of system is just what chaplains and endorsing agencies have warned can be used to limit religious liberty for chaplains and service members, basing their warnings on many real-life examples that have already occurred in civilian circles and in foreign militaries.

Further, the report—in its attached “Support Plan for Implementation”—admits that current religious liberty regulations create “boundaries that are not always clearly defined.” In that same section, the report specifically admits that the CRWG recommendation would allow a complaint to be filed on the basis of “sexual orientation discrimination” against a chaplain who had preached a sermon teaching that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

While the report suggests that such a complaint has little likelihood of success, it ignores the obvious fact that (1) unclearly defined regulatory boundaries will push chaplains toward self-censorship to avoid even specious complaints, (2) the proposed complaint resolution system—where the local chain of command resolves complaints on an ad hoc basis—could worsen that chill on religious speech by having inconsistent applications of unclear rules, and (3) even where a complaint is dismissed, the investigation process itself can create pressure to avoid religious teachings on sexual ethics to avoid being branded as a “troublemaker” or seen as “not a team player.” And given that commanders can be criminally punished for failure to prosecute sexual orientation discrimination or harassment complaints, there’s a significant likelihood that even baseless complaints will be exhaustively investigated.

At least some of this harm could have been relieved by encouraging Congress to adopt detailed and comprehensive religious liberty protections—which are often common additions to laws that give sexual orientation special non-discrimination protections—if it chooses to tear down the current law. The CRWG requested and received model legislation from religious liberty groups, based on existing federal legal protections that are available to civilians, that would have helped limit the damage to religious liberty. But, ignoring both that model legislation and its own recognition that current regulations are unclear, the report simply advocates relying on existing regulations.

And this is despite the overwhelming feedback from the survey the CRWG conducted that service members and chaplains are acutely concerned about repeal’s effect on religious liberty.

The existence of this strong emphasis on religious liberty concerns is itself notable because the CRWG survey of 400,000 service members failed to ask a single direct question about that issue. The CRWG’s script for the many discussions with groups of service members similarly failed to inquire about the concern.

And the one notable time that the CRWG did directly solicit input about possible effects on religious liberty—by contacting chaplain endorsing agencies—the majority of respondents emphasized their opposition to dismantling the law and expressed their concern with its effect on religious liberty. One reliable source has indicated that nearly 75 percent of the responding endorsing agencies opposed repeal.

That the CRWG is content to simply recognize the existence of a problem without doing a thing to avoid it is highly troubling. The report does not nearly address the many difficult concerns that endorsing agencies and chaplains have been raising for months, and which they specifically brought to the CRWG’s attention, such as:

Will the Army Chaplaincy’s Strong Bonds program, which exists to strengthen Army marriages, be forced to include same-sex couples? Will chaplains be allowed to offer advice on sexual ethics to commanders? Will chaplains with orthodox beliefs be able to teach ethics courses at military schools, as they do now? Will chaplains be able to reference their beliefs when hiring civilians for military ministry positions? What will happen when chaplains are approached by a service member engaged in homosexual behavior and asked to provide counsel on that behavior? Can chaplains counsel such a person to cease the homosexual conduct, like they can counsel service members to cease adulterous conduct?

The report’s response: silence.

While the report laudably rejects the argument that opposition to homosexual behavior is the same as racism by noting both that “skin color and sexual orientation are fundamentally different” and that the chaplaincy helped lead racial integration efforts in the 1940s, the report nonetheless creates a different erroneous comparison.

It says that since chaplains and service members have been able to handle the moral issue of abortion without loss of religious liberty under existing regulations, they will be able to do the same with homosexual behavior. But this is wrong for at least two reasons.

First, military regulations did not prevent President Clinton from trying to silence chaplains about abortion in the 1990s. Rather, it took a federal court which recognized in Rigdon v. Perry that his efforts violated the chaplains’ rights protected by the First Amendment.

Second, people who choose to have an abortion are not a protected class in the military, unlike the practical effect of the report’s recommendations regarding people who choose to engage in homosexual behavior. In fact, military bases are banned from performing abortions, and military doctors are given special conscience protections regarding abortion.

In fact, the abortion example’s only useful function is to highlight that chaplains are willing to minister to anyone, including those who make moral decisions with which they disagree. But that is true for chaplains in the context of homosexual behavior as well, as chaplains and endorsing organizations opposed to repeal have repeatedly stressed. Their concern is not who they will be ministering to (since they are happy to minister to everyone), but rather how they will be allowed to minister in the wake of crushing the existing law. And nothing about the CRWG Report addressed that concern.

So, the report does make some important contributions to religious liberty concerns by compiling data and recognizing the distinction between homosexual behavior and innate, innocuous characteristics like race. But because the report’s religious liberty analysis is misleading and inaccurate, it will lead to a loss of that liberty. We should not jeopardize the religious liberty of those who fight to protect our own.

This post originally appeared as a column on Townhall.com, 12/17/2010.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.