What is at Stake in "Don't Ask Don't Tell"?

For all the talk I hear about this issue, I never hear the real heart of the issue addressed. This shows that the pro-sexual revolution activists are succeeding in framing the debate on their terms and, as I learned in high school parliamentary-style debating, whoever gets to define the terms of the debate has a huge advantage and is likely to win regardless of the merits of the two positions themselves.

All the debate surrounds the supposed harm done to homosexuals who have to "hide" their behavior and not have it "affirmed" as good by those around them. Those opposed to changing the policy talk of "combat effectiveness" and "morale issues," which seem pretty ambiguous and hard to nail down. Defined this way, the traditional view is going to lose.

What stands out to me are facts like these: (1) homosexuals are not hunted down and thrown out of the military, (2) homosexuals are not being discriminated against in terms of promotion or rewards, and (3) no one is telling homosexuals that they have to agree with traditional sexual morality that says that homosexuality is morally evil.

What is at stake here is not the rights of homosexuals to be left alone like other minorities, but a change to the views of the majority to embrace homosexuality as good. This is what the activists want: they want people like me to change our morality. My question is to them is: if we leave can you alone, why can't you leave us alone?

The open "recognition" the activists demand is not "tolerance." They already have that but they are not satisfied with mere tolerance. Yet tolerance is all that any minority has a right to demand in a liberal society. As an Evangelical I can't demand that everybody abandon their own faith and embrace key tenets of mine just because I feel that I am diminished in some way by the lack of affirmation I receive from my work colleagues or the government. What I have right to demand is the right to be left alone to practice my religion as I see fit and to have my request for conscientious objection to certain things taken seriously. These minimal standards of tolerance are possible for everyone in society. But to demand that everyone approve of my lifestyle and regard it as equal to their own is simply impossible.

Here we come to the heart of the problem. Pro-sexual revolution activists insist that traditional Christians, Jews, Muslims and others change their sincerely-held religious views to agree with them. This is intolerant, illiberal and authoritarian. It is inconsistent with a liberal democratic society. It is like Evangelicals coercing everyone else in society into going to church every Sunday or Catholics forcing everyone else in society to recognize the Pope's authority.

If the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is repealed, the result will not be more toleration and openness in society, but less. It will represent the victory of secularism over Christianity and Judaism. It will represent the imposition of one particular morality on everyone without respect for conscience or tradition.

In Canada, we have experience with same-sex "marriage" laws and we see what they are really designed to do. They are designed to provide a legal framework for the imposition of one particular morality on everyone by coercion. They represent a rationale for rejecting claims to conscientious objection. They give the most radical activists among us the legal standing to eradicate all traditional, Judeo-Christians morality and natural law from the public square.

If "Don't ask, don't tell" is repealed, the most likely result will be the loss of hundreds and hundreds of Evangelical Christian military chaplains. They will gradually be forced out as a "pro-homosexuality" morality is imposed on the chaplaincy. It will be gradual but the pressure will be steady and many people will be tempted to compromise out of agony of conscience. Others will "go underground" and try to keep their heads down while realizing that they are vulnerable to be "outed" and court-martialed at any time.

The end result will not be a more tolerant and accepting institution but simply one in which traditional Christianity is treated more harshly than homosexuals are treated today. It will be a situation in which traditional Christians have fewer rights than homosexuals currently have. How does that make society more just or tolerant?

Why are Liberals So Intolerant?

Carson Holloway has some sharp insights on "The Sources of Liberal Intolerance" at Public Discourse.

Liberal intolerance is rooted in a secular disregard for the dignity of individuals, coupled with the veneration of Progress and the belief that liberal ideologies can’t win in public debate.

American conservatives frequently complain that American liberals are intolerant—a striking paradox for a political movement whose very name suggests a respect for freedom. In their political rhetoric, liberals frequently resort to demonization, claiming, for example, that those who oppose same-sex marriage are animated by irrational hatreds. In the realm of public policy liberals openly desire to regulate communications media, like talk radio, that promote conservative ideas. Indeed, contemporary liberals routinely defend speech codes in the universities, which an older generation of liberals defended as bastions of untrammeled discourse. The complaint is so familiar, and the examples so numerous, that further elaboration of the phenomenon could serve no useful purpose.

What might serve some useful purpose, however, is an effort to reveal the roots of this intolerance. Tolerance is a delicate plant that does not grow easily in the soil of humanity. To some extent, then, liberal intolerance is simply a reflection of the ordinary weakness of human nature, which in all men yearns to silence those whose opinions differ too widely from their own. . . .

In the first place, liberals are drawn into intolerance by their belief in progress, or rather Progress. The contemporary left is, to a considerable extent, committed to the notion that history, or rather History, moves according to a rational, discernible purpose, specifically in the direction of a gradual but irreversible amelioration of the human condition, understood especially as an ever-increasing equality. At first sight, one might expect that such a belief would actually foster tolerance. After all, why should one bother to silence non-progressive views if Progress is fated to advance no matter what anyone does? But it does not work out that way. Instead, the liberal belief in Progress causes liberals to view any expression of what they regard as retrograde opinion to be a threat to the very foundations of their worldview.

In the second place, contemporary liberalism is prone to intolerance because some of its most cherished political and cultural aspirations are at odds with the deeply-rooted moral convictions of the American society it is trying to reform.

Finally, the left is intolerant because it tends to be secular, and as a result is less able to respect the dignity of the individual human person. The Western tradition finds support for human dignity in the biblical belief that every human being is created in the image and likeness of a transcendent God. . . . Modern American liberals have to a considerable extent shaken off such theological convictions. In their place, many liberals have embraced Darwinism, understood not merely as a scientific explanation of the biological mechanisms of evolution but as a comprehensive account of man’s ultimate origins. Darwinism thus understood, however, purports to “know” that human beings emerged merely through the interplay of chance and necessity, and that they differ from other animals not in kind but only in degree. . . .

Thus we often find liberals seeking to advance the cause of social justice, as they understand it, by doing injustice to individuals.

Read the rest here. A few comments.

First, since contemporary liberalism makes "Tolerance" its first principle of practical reason and its highest virtue, for it to fail even to be tolerant makes it a complete and total failure as a political philosophy even judged by its own internal standards.

Second, we must remember that contemporary liberalism is not classical 19th century liberalism, but is a form of liberalism that has surrendered in large part to socialist thinking. Contemporary liberalism allows Marxists to pose as insiders to Western political systems rather than appearing as an outside enemy seeking to destroy the system. The intolerance of contemporary liberalism arises out of the mixing of revolutionary Marxism with liberal thought to create something antithetical to the Western tradition.

Who Else Wants to Share?

Pull up a chair and get ready for some edification "Spirit of Vatican II style." (It could just as easily be "liberal Protestant style" or "Emergent Church style.")

Update on the Howell Firing at U. of Illinois

Patrick T. Gillen has some good comments on the dismissal of Ken Howell from the University of Illinois for teaching what Catholic Church teaches on homosexuality in a course on the teachings of the Catholic Church in an op ed piece in today's Washington Times.

Set aside the obvious absurdity (and injustice) of firing a man for teaching about the subject he was supposed to teach in order to ask an even more fundamental question. How did we get to the point where Robert McKim, head of the Department of Religion at a major public university and founder of its "queer studies" major to boot, can relieve a man of his duties for teaching about a perspective that merits discussion in any department of religion worthy of its name?

I think Mr. Howell has been treated so unjustly because he is caught up in a larger struggle over the very purpose of public universities during a period many academics call postmodern. The treatment of Mr. Howell compels us to ask this question: What is the purpose of the public university and academic freedom in our present day?

I say we must ask this question because when I read about Mr. Howell's predicament, it called to mind a poem titled "The Lie" that I read as a student years ago. In it, the author, on the brink of death, sends his soul on a "thankless errand," to "give the world the lie." The errand consists in conveying to the powers of his day messages that give the lie to their pretensions.

Among the messages sent is this one: "[T]ell schools they want profoundness, and stand too much on seeming."

Mr. Howell's deplorable situation reflects a crisis in public education, a crisis that threatens to replace something profound with a counterfeit. At its best, the university, including the public university, has a noble mission - to help students find truth, including the truth about the human person. The very presence of departments of religion in public universities is a reflection of this high aspiration, resting as it does on recognition of the simple fact that genuine insights are derived from systems of thought we tend to categorize as religious nowadays. So too, the commitment to academic freedom is rooted in the search for truth, not the mere desire of academics to pursue their fancies - although one may be excused for thinking so when we read about "queer studies" and the like.

The university's willingness to offer the course taught by Mr. Howell reflects a profound commitment to academic freedom and true education - not mere indoctrination. Mr. Howell's willingness to address forthrightly controversial issues from a perspective that he knew would be unpopular reflects a profound commitment to the academic calling at its best, one of service to students who seek truth. The effort to purge Mr. Howell from the university is a betrayal of these profound commitments.

Read it all here. I would have no problem with the university having a course in "Queer Studies" taught by someone who was pro-homosexual as long as it also offered courses like the one Dr. Howell teaches on Christian doctrine and ethics. Let the students explore the debate. The problem is that Christians are tolerant and pro-homosexual crusaders are not. That is the essence of the problem.

So what does a liberal democracy do when confronted by people who utilize the tolerance it provides to take away the freedoms of those with whom they disagree? What happens when a segment of the citizens of a liberal democracy reject tolerance and work to establish a totalitarian dictatorship of relativism? I guess the only choices are to submit and give up our own freedom of religion or else recognize that this is a fight that only one side can win and work to repress the other side. People of good will who value tolerance ought to work to roll back the legislative agenda of the sexual revolution ideologues. Like all revolutions, this one will only succeed by destroying what it rebelled against. In this case we cannot let the freedoms of the West be destroyed by those who value the will to power over natural law.

Thomas Peters has an update on the case here. Ironically, as Peters reports, even the "Atheists, Agnostics and Free Thinkers at UIUC are alarmed by this ideological purge. They should be. Students of the French Revolution know how quickly the revolution devours its own children.

Further Update: Here is a story on students organizing in support of Dr. Howell.

Why Christian Culture is Good for Homosexuals

Bruce Bawer is a homosexual who wrote one of the first books warning of the possible take-over of Europe by Islam, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within (Anchor, 2007) and Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom (Anchor, 2010). It is ironic that he is raising the alarm about Islam given that he moved from the US to Europe because it was supposedly more tolerant!

In a recent blog post entitled, "I’ve Become an Enemy of the People for Speaking the Truth About Islam," he writes:

When it comes to the right to speak one’s mind about Islam, the record of the last few years makes it clear which direction the West is moving in. In France and Italy, Oriana Fallaci is put on trial for disparaging Islam. In Canada, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are hauled before “human rights commission” tribunals for criticizing Islam in print. In Australia, an Islamic organization sues two pastors for “vilification of Muslims.” In Britain, a Daily Telegraph columnist is arrested on charges of hate speech for having written negatively about Islam, and the Archbishop of Canterbury proposes that Parliament pass stronger laws against such speech acts. And in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, the head of the Freedom Party, which performed so well in the June 9 general elections that Wilders may end up in the governing coalition, still faces trial for having made a film about the Koranic foundations of terrorism.

Then there’s Norway, where I live, and where the last few days have seen yet another dark development. By way of background, permit me to begin by quoting myself. On pages 230-31 of my book Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom I sum up the more alarming aspects of Norway’s Discrimination Law, passed in 2005:

It forbids “harassment on the grounds of ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, skin color, language, religion, or beliefs,” and, in turn, defines harassment as “actions, omissions, or utterances [my emphasis] that have the effect or are intended to have the effect of being insulting, intimidating, hostile, degrading, or humiliating.”

In other words, it’s illegal just to say certain things.

Defendants may be accused not only by the individuals whom they’ve supposedly offended but also by semiofficial organs such as the Anti-Racist Center and the Center against Ethnic Discrimination (both of which helped formulate the law, and both of which exist less to oppose real racism and discrimination than to oppose political incorrectness generally) or by the government’s Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud.

Which means that a handful of far-left organizations have been given enormous power to silence those they disagree with.

Violations of the law by individuals are punishable by fine; violations by individuals in concert with at least two other persons (such as a writer conspiring with an editor and publisher, perhaps?) can be punished by up to three years’ imprisonment — this in a country where murderers often get off with less. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the accused: you’re guilty until proven innocent.

And this in a supposedly free country.

Read the rest here.

It is true that Christianity regards homosexual behavior as sinful, just as Islam does. But Christianity also believes that all people are created in the image of God and have value just by virtue of being human. Therefore, Christianity makes room for tolerating many things that it regards as morally wrong and it allows for homosexuals to live without persecution.

Most of the confrontation currently going on between homosexual activists and Christian Churches is not about whether or not Christianity is willing to tolerate people whose lifestyle it disagrees with; rather, it is about homosexuals demanding that Christians change their religion and openly give approval to something they regard as abhorrent. If homosexuals would just leave Christians alone to worship and bring up their children according to their own religious views and if everyone agreed to tolerate the existence of those with whom they disagreed it would be possible for homosexuals to enjoy freedom and tolerance in majority Christian countries as has been the case all along.

But if homosexuals join the hard Left in trying to eliminate Christianity, then all they are doing is tearing down the edifice upon which toleration and respect is built. Once the West is on its knees before Islam, does any thinking person doubt that homosexuals will experience persecution, the likes of which they have never experienced in Western history? At what period of history, pray tell, would a rational homosexual rather have lived in Muslim dominated countries rather than Christian dominated ones?

Homosexuals would be better off, in terms of their rational self-interest, to stop aiding attempts to promote multiculturalism, political correctness and the marginalization of Christianity in the West. A Christianity which respects its traditions and Scriptures enough to maintain its traditional moral stance on sexuality is an alive tradition that can provide a foundation for a relatively just society. But a Christianity that succumbs to political correctness, Marxism and multiculturalism (as well as Western self-hatred), can provide no bulwark against the Ayatollahs and Sharia law.

Totalitarianism at the University of Calgary

So the University of Calgary administration can't handle a debate about one of the great moral issues of our time on their campus. So they are sending the police to the homes of female students to charge them with trespassing on their own university campus public spaces! What is next? Hoses? Dogs? Thugs with baseball bats?

What a bunch of wimps these people are. Who ever let them into positions of authority in a university anyway? These nervous nellies claim that the scary pictures "disturb" other students. Is this a university or a daycare? Who ever guaranteed a student that he or she could go to a university and never be disturbed? Isn't getting disturbed and learning to defend your point of view in a real debate with real people part of getting an education? Or do they still do education at the University of Calgary? Maybe it is just a pretentious Soviet-style indoctrination camp with nicer cafeterias. Honestly, it sounds more like North Korea than Alberta.

See this story in the National Post: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1245751 and this bracing dose of reality from Ezra Levant: http://ezralevant.com/2009/02/university-of-calgary-alumni-s.html

All across Canada, free speech and conservative morality are under attack. Our society has been taken over by people who are determined to impose their own (low) moral standards on everyone else and those who object are increasingly at risk of harassement and worse. The sexual revolutionaries are no longer intrested in tolerance; that was just a temporary tactic useful when they were in the minority. Now they demand acquiesence or else. Even the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is now chiming in on the side of conservatives, which is heartening. But it may be too late.

If I hear one more sanctimonious appeal to academic freedom from a Canadian university administrator, I may throw up. Most of them could not distinguish clearly between academic freedom and political correctness. And most are so unprincipled that we can have no doubt that down the road when the Fascists take over, they will happily work for them. They may not even notice much difference, if this case is anything to go by.

Benedict XVI described this situation accurately and concisely in his famous phrase "the dictatorship of relativism."