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.

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.

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

Have you heard the joke, “if con is the opposite of pro, then congress is the opposite of progress?”  While there might be several examples supporting the truth of this statement, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (“RPUIPA”), passed by Congress, is not one of them.

RLUIPA is an example of Congress actually doing well by churches and protecting them from overzealous zoning officials.   Churches were being pushed out of cities and counties.  For example, they were being told they could not locate in the business district because church use was supposedly inconsistent with generating a revenue stream for the city.  But on the other hand, churches were also told they could not locate in residential areas on the theory that church use caused traffic and noise issues so it was inconsistent with residential use as well.  Churches had a real uphill battle on their hands just to locate within any part of urban and suburban areas.

To make matters worse, cities could discriminate against churches under the guise of a bogus safety issue that for some reason, only applied to churches and not other similar uses.   Something had to be done to rein in this seemingly unstoppable power of zoning officials to hinder church property use.

So Congress stepped up and provided churches with meaningful protection against these overzealous zoning officials by passing RLUIPA.  This federal law prohibits towns and counties from treating churches differently than other similar uses.  It protects churches from ordinances that substantially burden their beliefs and practices.

But a recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals in River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, Illinois, threatens to gut the protections of RLUIPA.  In this case, the River of Life church bought a building in a commercial district to hold its church services.  When the church bought the property, the following uses were automatically permitted: art galleries, gymnasiums, meeting halls, lounges and taverns, along with several other uses.  In addition, the following uses were allowed with a permit: museums, day care centers, schools of any kind, community centers, and live entertainment venues.

But, the city prohibited any and all church use in the district!  What possible reason could the city have for prohibiting a church, which teaches moral values to the citizenry, while allowing community centers and live entertainment venues?

So the church filed a lawsuit claiming that the town’s actions violated their constitutional rights, as well as their rights under RLUIPA.  But the Seventh Circuit ruled against the church.  In so doing, the Seventh Circuit effectively eliminated the protections of RLUIPA.   We will delve deeper into the court’s reasons in future blogs, but for now, I would like to point out this quote from the court: “Commerce and industry must be recognized for what they are, necessary and desirable elements of the community….”  See 2010 WL 2630602, *5 (C.A. 7 (Ill.)).

According to the court, the town was justified in discriminating against the city because “commerce and industry” are “necessary and desirable elements of the community”.   But what about the church?  Is not the work of the church necessary and desirable for the community?  Of course it is.  But to certain government officials who only understand the value of the dollar, providing moral direction and the other benefits of churches is worthless.

Maybe there will come a day when we remember that churches are also beneficial – and even necessary – to communities.

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

So what if Congress forces the military to make homosexual behavior normal?  Isn’t that just a military issue?  Why should average Americans care at all?

Because this change will change America.

Why is that?  For at least two reasons.  First, the military is a repository of American culture—it reflects, in a single institution, many of the highest values our society respects.  Honor.  Duty.  Sacrifice.  Fidelity.  Strength.  Courage.  Ingenuity.  Perseverance.  Victory.  Thus, forcing the military to affirm homosexual conduct will cram that conduct into the pantheon of American values.  As Al Mohler pointed out recently, the homosexual movement’s goal in repealing the military’s current policy has little to do military personnel policy and everything to do with changing American culture.  And by making this change to the way America perceives itself by changing the lens of the military, the homosexual movement will be able to grease the skids for other societal changes.  Like forcing Christian businesses—daycares, bookstores, para-church ministries—to employ individuals who openly and unrepentantly engage in immoral sexual behavior.  This will be accomplished by the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”), a leftist effort to normalize homosexual behavior nationwide.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi directly admitted as much, saying her strategic approach to passing ENDA hinges on first repealing DADT.

And this leads to the second point: perhaps the only institution more deeply respected and widely recognized as the training ground for inculcating societal values than the military is marriage.  And normalizing homosexual conduct in the military will not only—as an ACLU attorney recently stated—be a cultural precursor to normalizing homosexual “marriage,” it will actually create the perfect storm for destroying the primary federal law protecting marriage—the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).

Basically, it will go like this: a same-sex couple will get “married” in a state like Massachusetts.  One or both members of the couple will be in the military, and will press for married couples’ benefits, like housing and medical coverage, arguing that the military cannot discriminate against homosexual “marriages.”  And when the military denies the request based on DOMA, that Service member will sue in a sympathetic federal court to get DOMA declared unconstitutional.  And, quite possibly, the only federal bulwark against a nationwide redefinition of marriage will be breached.  Sound far fetched?  The first part of the strategy is already happening: a soldier in a homosexual relationship applied for married housing just after Defense Secretary Gates announced the goal of repealing current policy.  

So, other than the simple reason that we should protect the military because we respect it, why should we civilians care about what happens to the military?  Because we value our culture.  Because we value marriage.  Because we’re next.

_________________________________________

If you’re a military chaplain, active or retired, and are interested in becoming involved in this issue or signing the Chaplains Letter, please contact us with your information.

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

Already, veteran chaplains from numerous denominations–including Lutherans, Southern Baptists, and Presbyterians–have spoken out to express their concern that repealing the current law that protects the military from open homosexual behavior will, among other things, harm religious liberty.  Just yesterday, another major voice in the chaplaincy community, Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Catholic Church’s Military Diocese, added his voice in defense of the military’s current law.

His argument was made on two grounds: First, repeal cannot be allowed to limit the First Amendment rights and duties of chaplains in their ministry to Service members.  While those who practice homosexual behavior should receive “respect and treatment worthy of their human dignity,” “no restrictions or limitations on the teaching of Catholic morality can be accepted.  First Amendment rights regarding the free exercise of religion must be respected.”  Similarly, “Catholic chaplains must show compassion for persons with a homosexual orientation, but can never condone–even silently–homosexual behavior.”

Second, in what Archbishop Broglio describes as “a more fundamental” issue, repeal would harm the ability of the military to be an effective fighting force.  He reasons–correctly–that morality and “corresponding good moral decisions” are integral to “unit cohesion and the overall morale of troops and effectiveness of the mission.”  Thus, normalizing immoral behavior, like homosexuality, through military policy potentially would have an “enormous and overwhelming” effect on military readiness.  ”Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals or their living conditions to respond to merely political considerations is neither just nor prudent, especially for the armed forces at a time of war.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Stay tuned for more news of other religious leaders speaking out against repeal.

___________________________________________________________

If you’re a military chaplain, active or retired, and are interested in becoming involved in this issue or signing the Chaplains Letter, please contact us with your information.

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