If RenewAmerica has a Christmas party, I want to attend just to watch Jamie Freeze take on the good ol’ boys. Jamie is a young conservative woman and a student at Regent University law school who thinks the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a good thing. Elsewhere, on the 17th, the ACLJ’s Jordan Sekulow essentially yawned at the repeal. I will discuss his WaPo column after I briefly excerpt Freeze’s article titled, “General George S. Patent Leather: Conservatives and DADT,” Freeze counters fellow Renew America columnist Bryan Fischer’s effort to link the lunar eclipse with the repeal of DADT.
Freeze is a traditional evangelical regarding sexuality but she does not believe government should require citizens to adopt her views. She says:
…as one Christian associate said, “For us to feel appointed to execute some sort of cosmic justice on the Lord’s behalf is the height of hubris.”
Our government governs Christians and non-Christians. America was founded on Christian principles by Christians and non-Christians. It was not an exclusively Christian nation or else the 1st Amendment would have been nullified from the start. Our founders quickly realized that mandating church attendance and tithing were futile attempts in changing the hearts of men. That is why the Baptists were the forerunners of separation of church and state in colonial America — they did not want a state church because God did not need the state to accomplish His plan. The state interfered with God’s work. As a Baptist, I am proud of the tradition that Isaac Backus and John Leland gave America, and I seek to preserve it.
I would add Roger Williams to the list as well. Williams and then later the early Baptists Backus and Leland stood for a state that protected the rights and conscience of all. I really like this quote attributed to Leland by Wikipedia:
“The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever…Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” – A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia.
Freeze then addresses several arguments social conservatives have raised against DADT, in one case citing a soldier friend who believes sexual orientation is irrelevant to service. She adds that we need all hands on deck while fighting two wars and channels Barry Goldwater’s observation that people who shoot straight need not be straight.
In what has passed for conservatism in recent years, Freeze rightly notes that the divide over social issues is growing.
As a conservative, I have already received much criticism for the views expressed in this article, and I anticipate more. One man, a prominent local Republican clearly offended by my views, told me I held no claim to the ideology of conservatism. However, I will share with you what I told him: “If by conservative, you mean valuing life, liberty, and property above all other rights, then yes, I am conservative. I am a Lockean to the core. However, if, by conservative, you mean I want the government to mandate our lives to the smallest details all for the sake of public morality, then no, I am not a conservative.”
I agree with Freeze here but I do not dismiss the concerns of social conservatives lightly, especially those who are not working for advocacy groups. Many people I know are afraid that the government is going to make them believe things they can’t believe. They are afraid that the kind of philosophy espoused by Williams and Leland will require them to adhere to views they cannot accept. Not so. When laws are judged fairly, protecting the freedom of others does not remove mine. In a society where equal protection is for everyone, it is to my advantage to stick up for the rights of all. By doing this, I am sticking up for my rights to pursue my conscience as well. Where rights seem to be in conflict, we can try to work it out as citizens or involve the judiciary.
Another young conservative who has probably raised some eyebrows is Jordan Sekulow with the conservative ACLJ. Started by Pat Robertson, ACLJ does not have any pro-gay cred, and yet Mr. Sekulow writes, No DADT, No Problem:
The outdated, unworkable “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law will likely be repealed in the next few days. As a Christian conservative broadcaster, attorney, and activist who recently discussed DADT and my opinion about it on-air, I can say that for the most part, social conservatives are not enraged about the end of DADT. In fact, the grassroots has not been engaged on this issue for a long time.
I feel pretty sure that the Family Research Council or the American Family Association will not agree with this assessment since they have been on a full court press to stop the repeal. Sekulow locates his attitude at least partially in his youth, saying
We live in a new time. As a young member of the “religious right,” if a gay friend or family member came to me and said they wanted to join the military, I would gladly be the first to congratulate and thank them. I do not believe they should be barred from serving because of their sexual orientation.
For all those who believe social conservatism is a monolithic mass, one needs to contrast Sekulow’s statement with Bryan Fischer’s “homosexuals in the military gave us six million dead Jews” rant.
I do not want to make too much out of two young conservatives and their views on DADT, but I am inclined to think they are part of what other observers see as a moderating trend among youth toward homosexuality. These young people do not view homosexual behavior as an option within their religious views, but they also seem to be rejecting the strident, stereotyping rhetoric and policies of their elders.
This is a very good post. Let me add 2 more to the list:
– I was shocked to see a report on CBN/700 Club about a friendship that has developed b/t a Glen Stanton, a Focus on the Family rep, and John Corvino, a gay activist. CBN has been broadcasting since 1961, and I don’t think during all of that time it has ever portrayed a gay man in a positive light. On CBN, the “ex-gays” get treated like real people, the gays are presented as caricatures. But this report broke that trend. And at the end of the piece, Tim Robertson (who is being groomed to replace his dad, pursuant to the apparently widespread Christian practice of nepotism), makes a plea for a renewed commitment to civil debate and an end to demonization. Granted, Tim Robertson is not exactly young, but I think he does bring with him generational change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH-EYHWVejk
– The AFA website has a regular feature called the Millennial Perspective, presented by Elijah Friedeman. I give some credit to AFA, because they allow a bona fide Millennial to speak, not some 35-year old “youth pastor” purporting to speak on behalf of youth. Anyway, today’s video concerned DADT. I was bracing myself for a junior version of Bryan Fischer. But to my amazement, Elijah chose instead to focus on a recent piece in the New York Times wedding pages, in which a recently married couple recounted how they met and became engaged while still married to other people. The young man makes the point that Christians focus an inordinate amount of time and energy on things like DADT, when the real threat to marriage comes from heterosexual attitudes and conduct such as that exhibited by this couple.
Whether he intended it or not, this clearly was a hard smack on the nose of Bryan Fischer, who spends 70-80 percent of his time worrying about homosexuals, and has very little to say about the 96% of the world that is heterosexual. It was a very odd experience, hearing sane and reasonable arguments on the AFA website and agreeing with them. The sooner the Millennials take over the world, the better off we all will be.
http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2147491277&tab=video&video=2147501366
Byron, no liberal I know ever thought that DADT was a good idea. Most of us despised Clinton for dumping it on us. Not to take issue but you seem to think that it was once thought to be popular. It wasn’t ever.
I find myself fairly uninterested in this policy one way or the other at this point, but a few things ought to be noted:
– The most important issue in the military is military-preparedness, not social engineering. If this move doesn’t harm military-preparedness–and I know that a study or three suggests that–then I’m fine with it. I’m not convinced one way or the other on that point; I could see arguments both ways. My concern is that in our haste toward somebody’s definition of “equality”, we lose sight of what the military is all about: defending American interests.
– I find it terribly ironic that the very liberals who have rushed to overturn DADT were ones who 15+ years ago were excited about it, and conservatives now who think it’s a jolly good idea hated it 15+ years ago. I knew of few conservatives besides myself who agreed with the policy then. I did think–and still do–that if we held to the letter of the law on it on DADT, it represented a pretty reasonable compromise position: allow homosexuals to serve, but don’t create some problem in the foxholes. Again, if it doesn’t cause such a problem, then I’m fine with changing it. But all of this derision directed toward DADT on the part of liberals amuses the heck out of me, as does all the love conservatives seem to have for it.
– Oh, and AFA has a credibility factor of ZERO as long as this clown Bryan Fischer writes anything for them.
Warren# ~ Dec 23, 2010 at 2:36 pm
“The DADT debate was notable for unsupported claims (gay soldiers will be abusing the helpless straight soldiers more)”
Also notable was how the real harms DADT caused gay service members were ignored. Aside from constantly having to hide who they may be in a relationship with, they face a dilemma on who to list as emergency contact or surviving beneficiary (very significant decisions for soldiers shipping off to war). Instead DADT supporters portrayed gay soldiers as people who simply wanted to”flaunt” their sexuality.
Warren# ~ Dec 23, 2010 at 2:36 pm
“The DADT debate was notable for unsupported claims (gay soldiers will be abusing the helpless straight soldiers more)”
Also notable was how the real harms DADT caused gay service members were ignored. Aside from constantly having to hide who they may be in a relationship with, they face a dilemma on who to list as emergency contact or surviving beneficiary (very significant decisions for soldiers shipping off to war). Instead DADT supporters portrayed gay soldiers as people who simply wanted to”flaunt” their sexuality.
Warren,
“When laws are judged fairly, protecting the freedom of others does not remove mine. In a society where equal protection is for everyone, it is to my advantage to stick up for the rights of all. By doing this, I am sticking up for my rights to pursue my conscience as well. Where rights seem to be in conflict, we can try to work it out as citizens or involve the judiciary.”
This is beautifully stated. Both sides need to read and understand this.
Christianity is not monolithic…
But some Christians have megaphones.
Warren,
Post this somewhere prominent.
Get signers who agree.
Create a list like the SPLC for Christians against Distorted Facts which encourage hate.
Stephen, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one; we seem to remember the same event (the original enactment of DADT) differently.
David Blakeslee# ~ Dec 23, 2010 at 1:52 pm
“I don’t think I am equating same sex relationships in the military with fraternization.”
You were attempting to use regs against fraternization as a justification for DADT.
“Our society is in the process of liberalizing sexual behavior, but many sexual behaviors are still forbidden on a civil law level.”
Do you have some examples?
“We do that all the time with all sorts of sexual behaviors. I am sure this will be obvious to you upon reflection.”
laws against sexual behaviour based on religious values have (rightly in my opinion) been removed. Laws based solely on religion, with no secular rationale, are a bad idea. Just ask gayuganda or asia bibi.
In a representative democracy, one responsibility of a citizen is to participate in discussion and making of laws via his/her representatives. Such has been done in this case via the legislative process. If the will of the people is abusive to the rights of an individual or a minority of people then we can appeal to the equal protection clause. Sometimes the values I hold personally will win these discussions and debates, other times not. Sometimes I suspend my desire to have my values imposed on a minority because the state has no compelling interest to make them adhere to my values. But be assured I will stick up for my rights if someone wants to take them away.
I think laws arrived at in a democratic manner or rulings from an independent judiciary reflect Christian values that have a broader consensus than what is taught in church. I don’t see values like this as imposed, even if I don’t agree with the outcome (say aspects of the health care law or legalized abortion). Some of those laws reflect certain aspects of Christian teaching and others do not. In every case, I am not looking to the state to impose a righteousness that is not chosen. Nor do I believe that God will strike down the nation because of some national unrighteousness.
Where the Christian groups who have been added to the hate group err is when they bend the truth to suit their aims and attempt to achieve what they consider to be a Christian public morality. If you can make a public interest case against gays in the military or gay marriage or some other gay rights plank, then make it; but do so without cherry picking studies, going out of your way to ignore studies which do not help your cause, or using poor analogies and stigmatizing rhetoric to unfairly cast your opponent in the worst possible light.
The DADT debate was notable for unsupported claims (gay soldiers will be abusing the helpless straight soldiers more) and unsubstantiated stigmatizing analogies (the Nazis were all gay and gays in the military gave us 6 million dead Jews). Whatever public interest reasons for maintaining the policy there might be are overshadowed and eventually cast aside in the face of ridiculous tactics. My belief is that the military leaders are people of incredible integrity and intelligence. They will not implement the repeal in ways that put anyone in danger. All of the rules regarding decorum and sexual behavior will continue to be enforced. Most young people of character who desire a military career will put country first and serve honorably. It will be shameful if those who lost the DADT debate attempt to scare young people into a self-fulfilling prophecy of avoiding the military.
Anyway, when it comes to my values, I need to make a case in the general interest. And when I do, I better not fearmonger, mislead, stigmatize, or make unsubstantiated claims. If I do, I bet my opponents will point it out.
To repeat:
Ken,
I don’t think I am equating same sex relationships in the military with fraternization.
Our society is in the process of liberalizing sexual behavior, but many sexual behaviors are still forbidden on a civil law level.
I am making the argument that the student at Regent wrongly thinks she has stepped around the argument by saying that she does not have the right to impose a religious value through a civil law on a secular public.
We do that all the time with all sorts of sexual behaviors. I am sure this will be obvious to you upon reflection.
I believe public education is compulsory; unless the parents can afford in time or money to provide an alternative. Maybe I am wrong.
Warren,
“When laws are judged fairly, protecting the freedom of others does not remove mine. In a society where equal protection is for everyone, it is to my advantage to stick up for the rights of all. By doing this, I am sticking up for my rights to pursue my conscience as well. Where rights seem to be in conflict, we can try to work it out as citizens or involve the judiciary.”
This is beautifully stated. Both sides need to read and understand this.
David Blakeslee# ~ Dec 23, 2010 at 11:02 am
Only certain types of sexual behaviour are regulated by the military. Most of it is not regulated. Are you trying to claim same-sex relationships are the same as fraternization (relationships between ranks) ?
Even if some christian values were “borrowed” in forming parts of the military code, that in no way means that all christian values must be adhered. It would certainly be counter-productive to strictly enforce the value of “thou shalt not kill” on the military.
Only for those children whose parents have no interest in their children’s moral upbringing. Further, public education is NOT compulsory. Educating children to certain standards is compulsory. How parents do that, public school, private school, home school, is up to the parents.
Been trying to process my feelings about this development, and reconcile them with my thinking and my values.
There has been an inherent void in the discussion about the impact, generally, of sexual behavior on military preparedness.
Heterosexuals in the officer corp are generally urged to display moral rectitude (with a blind eye turned, and no consequences for promiscuity if the officer is single). If married and unfaithful, it is considered a moral failing. If single or married and having a relationship among the enlisted ranks or with a junior or senior officer, it results in administrative judgment and perhaps a dishonorable discharge.
Heterosexuals in the enlisted ranks are merely educated about sexually transmitted diseases; and there is a subculture which encourages sexual promiscuity. Having relationships within either junior or senior enlisted personnel will result in administrative punishment and possible discharge.
I assume these same standards will be in place after the repeal of DADT.
So sexual behavior remains a justifiable behavior to supervise and sanction by the Government and by the Military in particular.
It seems to me that this is where the Argument by the Regent Student collapses.
I wish it were as simple as she and Warren imply…that as Christians we should step aside and let a secular government rule a secular people.
But, that secular government borrows heavily from Christian values all the time and in regard to the sexual behavior of heterosexuals in the military, it is still imposing Christian values in a secular agency on an involuntary work force.
It is a false secular piety to dismantle part of the Tao in the name of tolerance, while enforcing other parts of the Tao as firmly as in the past.
Our conservative friends at Regent are also missing that public education is compulsory (as opposed to church attendance) and the education of children about the moral nature of sexual behavior will be further blurred, and indoctrinated.
Christianity is not monolithic…
But some Christians have megaphones.
Warren,
Post this somewhere prominent.
Get signers who agree.
Create a list like the SPLC for Christians against Distorted Facts which encourage hate.
Stephen, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one; we seem to remember the same event (the original enactment of DADT) differently.
David Blakeslee# ~ Dec 23, 2010 at 1:52 pm
“I don’t think I am equating same sex relationships in the military with fraternization.”
You were attempting to use regs against fraternization as a justification for DADT.
“Our society is in the process of liberalizing sexual behavior, but many sexual behaviors are still forbidden on a civil law level.”
Do you have some examples?
“We do that all the time with all sorts of sexual behaviors. I am sure this will be obvious to you upon reflection.”
laws against sexual behaviour based on religious values have (rightly in my opinion) been removed. Laws based solely on religion, with no secular rationale, are a bad idea. Just ask gayuganda or asia bibi.
In a representative democracy, one responsibility of a citizen is to participate in discussion and making of laws via his/her representatives. Such has been done in this case via the legislative process. If the will of the people is abusive to the rights of an individual or a minority of people then we can appeal to the equal protection clause. Sometimes the values I hold personally will win these discussions and debates, other times not. Sometimes I suspend my desire to have my values imposed on a minority because the state has no compelling interest to make them adhere to my values. But be assured I will stick up for my rights if someone wants to take them away.
I think laws arrived at in a democratic manner or rulings from an independent judiciary reflect Christian values that have a broader consensus than what is taught in church. I don’t see values like this as imposed, even if I don’t agree with the outcome (say aspects of the health care law or legalized abortion). Some of those laws reflect certain aspects of Christian teaching and others do not. In every case, I am not looking to the state to impose a righteousness that is not chosen. Nor do I believe that God will strike down the nation because of some national unrighteousness.
Where the Christian groups who have been added to the hate group err is when they bend the truth to suit their aims and attempt to achieve what they consider to be a Christian public morality. If you can make a public interest case against gays in the military or gay marriage or some other gay rights plank, then make it; but do so without cherry picking studies, going out of your way to ignore studies which do not help your cause, or using poor analogies and stigmatizing rhetoric to unfairly cast your opponent in the worst possible light.
The DADT debate was notable for unsupported claims (gay soldiers will be abusing the helpless straight soldiers more) and unsubstantiated stigmatizing analogies (the Nazis were all gay and gays in the military gave us 6 million dead Jews). Whatever public interest reasons for maintaining the policy there might be are overshadowed and eventually cast aside in the face of ridiculous tactics. My belief is that the military leaders are people of incredible integrity and intelligence. They will not implement the repeal in ways that put anyone in danger. All of the rules regarding decorum and sexual behavior will continue to be enforced. Most young people of character who desire a military career will put country first and serve honorably. It will be shameful if those who lost the DADT debate attempt to scare young people into a self-fulfilling prophecy of avoiding the military.
Anyway, when it comes to my values, I need to make a case in the general interest. And when I do, I better not fearmonger, mislead, stigmatize, or make unsubstantiated claims. If I do, I bet my opponents will point it out.
To repeat:
Ken,
I don’t think I am equating same sex relationships in the military with fraternization.
Our society is in the process of liberalizing sexual behavior, but many sexual behaviors are still forbidden on a civil law level.
I am making the argument that the student at Regent wrongly thinks she has stepped around the argument by saying that she does not have the right to impose a religious value through a civil law on a secular public.
We do that all the time with all sorts of sexual behaviors. I am sure this will be obvious to you upon reflection.
I believe public education is compulsory; unless the parents can afford in time or money to provide an alternative. Maybe I am wrong.
David Blakeslee# ~ Dec 23, 2010 at 11:02 am
Only certain types of sexual behaviour are regulated by the military. Most of it is not regulated. Are you trying to claim same-sex relationships are the same as fraternization (relationships between ranks) ?
Even if some christian values were “borrowed” in forming parts of the military code, that in no way means that all christian values must be adhered. It would certainly be counter-productive to strictly enforce the value of “thou shalt not kill” on the military.
Only for those children whose parents have no interest in their children’s moral upbringing. Further, public education is NOT compulsory. Educating children to certain standards is compulsory. How parents do that, public school, private school, home school, is up to the parents.
Been trying to process my feelings about this development, and reconcile them with my thinking and my values.
There has been an inherent void in the discussion about the impact, generally, of sexual behavior on military preparedness.
Heterosexuals in the officer corp are generally urged to display moral rectitude (with a blind eye turned, and no consequences for promiscuity if the officer is single). If married and unfaithful, it is considered a moral failing. If single or married and having a relationship among the enlisted ranks or with a junior or senior officer, it results in administrative judgment and perhaps a dishonorable discharge.
Heterosexuals in the enlisted ranks are merely educated about sexually transmitted diseases; and there is a subculture which encourages sexual promiscuity. Having relationships within either junior or senior enlisted personnel will result in administrative punishment and possible discharge.
I assume these same standards will be in place after the repeal of DADT.
So sexual behavior remains a justifiable behavior to supervise and sanction by the Government and by the Military in particular.
It seems to me that this is where the Argument by the Regent Student collapses.
I wish it were as simple as she and Warren imply…that as Christians we should step aside and let a secular government rule a secular people.
But, that secular government borrows heavily from Christian values all the time and in regard to the sexual behavior of heterosexuals in the military, it is still imposing Christian values in a secular agency on an involuntary work force.
It is a false secular piety to dismantle part of the Tao in the name of tolerance, while enforcing other parts of the Tao as firmly as in the past.
Our conservative friends at Regent are also missing that public education is compulsory (as opposed to church attendance) and the education of children about the moral nature of sexual behavior will be further blurred, and indoctrinated.
Byron, no liberal I know ever thought that DADT was a good idea. Most of us despised Clinton for dumping it on us. Not to take issue but you seem to think that it was once thought to be popular. It wasn’t ever.
I find myself fairly uninterested in this policy one way or the other at this point, but a few things ought to be noted:
– The most important issue in the military is military-preparedness, not social engineering. If this move doesn’t harm military-preparedness–and I know that a study or three suggests that–then I’m fine with it. I’m not convinced one way or the other on that point; I could see arguments both ways. My concern is that in our haste toward somebody’s definition of “equality”, we lose sight of what the military is all about: defending American interests.
– I find it terribly ironic that the very liberals who have rushed to overturn DADT were ones who 15+ years ago were excited about it, and conservatives now who think it’s a jolly good idea hated it 15+ years ago. I knew of few conservatives besides myself who agreed with the policy then. I did think–and still do–that if we held to the letter of the law on it on DADT, it represented a pretty reasonable compromise position: allow homosexuals to serve, but don’t create some problem in the foxholes. Again, if it doesn’t cause such a problem, then I’m fine with changing it. But all of this derision directed toward DADT on the part of liberals amuses the heck out of me, as does all the love conservatives seem to have for it.
– Oh, and AFA has a credibility factor of ZERO as long as this clown Bryan Fischer writes anything for them.
This is a very good post. Let me add 2 more to the list:
– I was shocked to see a report on CBN/700 Club about a friendship that has developed b/t a Glen Stanton, a Focus on the Family rep, and John Corvino, a gay activist. CBN has been broadcasting since 1961, and I don’t think during all of that time it has ever portrayed a gay man in a positive light. On CBN, the “ex-gays” get treated like real people, the gays are presented as caricatures. But this report broke that trend. And at the end of the piece, Tim Robertson (who is being groomed to replace his dad, pursuant to the apparently widespread Christian practice of nepotism), makes a plea for a renewed commitment to civil debate and an end to demonization. Granted, Tim Robertson is not exactly young, but I think he does bring with him generational change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH-EYHWVejk
– The AFA website has a regular feature called the Millennial Perspective, presented by Elijah Friedeman. I give some credit to AFA, because they allow a bona fide Millennial to speak, not some 35-year old “youth pastor” purporting to speak on behalf of youth. Anyway, today’s video concerned DADT. I was bracing myself for a junior version of Bryan Fischer. But to my amazement, Elijah chose instead to focus on a recent piece in the New York Times wedding pages, in which a recently married couple recounted how they met and became engaged while still married to other people. The young man makes the point that Christians focus an inordinate amount of time and energy on things like DADT, when the real threat to marriage comes from heterosexual attitudes and conduct such as that exhibited by this couple.
Whether he intended it or not, this clearly was a hard smack on the nose of Bryan Fischer, who spends 70-80 percent of his time worrying about homosexuals, and has very little to say about the 96% of the world that is heterosexual. It was a very odd experience, hearing sane and reasonable arguments on the AFA website and agreeing with them. The sooner the Millennials take over the world, the better off we all will be.
http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2147491277&tab=video&video=2147501366