God Help America’s Ignorance Endanging Our Existence

Think about it:  The ignorance of others threatens your well-being.  The growing mass of ill-informed voters has become an invisible majority that elects officials that keep them (and you) dependent upon the government for your happiness.  Perhaps they don’t know any better; but by default, they are useful idiots who pose an imminent danger for us all.

 

How do you fight ignorance?  How do you win over a person who has no knowledge of a particular issue, but is willing to endanger you over it?  This is a very common occurrence when talking of politics or religion.  Emotion rules; and logic is banned from the discussion!

 

In America today, ignorance abounds.  It’s so pervasive it overwhelms those who actually know what is going on.  Many times, armed with facts and reasoning, I’ve engaged someone over an issue, only to result in being rebuffed and attacked with hostile emotion … backed by total ignorance.  And these people are now the majority of voters.  Beyond this being sad, it is incredibly dangerous to America’s future.  What would our Founding Fathers think? 

 

Now there is a difference between stupid and ignorance.  Those who are stupid lack intelligence; they are impervious to and unable to absorb ideas.  You can’t fix stupid.  But it is possible to fix ignorance … though difficult!  Therefore, it’s not a good use of time or effort trying to capture the stupid vote.  Rather, we have to use our resources to convert the ignorant.

 

The conversion of the ignorant is an uphill battle … given the current state of public education, media propaganda, and false and misleading politicians. How do we overcome such massive obstacles?

 

Benjamin Franklin said, “The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance.”  He’s right and we are currently paying a big price for what now is the norm among too many voters.  They don’t know the issues.  They are uninformed, but ready to vote for their man or woman for all the wrong reasons.  I honestly don’t care whether President Obama is black or not, but millions do and they voted for him for no other reason.  

 

Here are a few examples of ignorance in America:

 

Recently Jimmy Kimmel did a street interview segment on his television show called – “The confusing question of the day.”  His objective was to see what the average American knew about the sequester issue.  The result of the interviews was that no one knew what sequester was, but had definite opinions on it.  The question was phrased: “What do you think about Obama pardoning the sequester and sending it to Portugal?”  

 

A National Geographic survey of high school students conducted in 2005 revealed even greater ignorance, when they were asked to find ten U.S. states on the map; only 89% could find Texas and California, and only 51% could locate New York.  When asked to locate sixteen countries on a world map, they could only find seven of the sixteen.  29% couldn’t find the Pacific Ocean; and 11% couldn’t even find their own country – the U.S. on the world map! These kids presumably voted in the last two presidential elections.  

 

The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22% of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five freedoms of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  (How many can you name? … and be honest!)

 

On August 26, 2010, the Examiner.com reported that the greatest threat to U.S. national security is the willful unapologetic ignorance of the average American citizen.  The average American tends to not care about those things that don’t directly affect them.  It is a worldwide recognizable trait that other people of the world seem to or seek to be knowledgeable … except Americans.

 

There is another segment of our population that displays another form of ignorance that adds to the problem.  The Church has its share of believers from many denominations who are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good.  These sanctimonious Christians give elections to the bad guys, and contribute to the demise of our country.  

 

Finally, when you discover what Americans don’t know about the U.S. Constitution, to include members of Congress, it’s depressing.  Constitutional studies are rarely taught in schools anymore; and in some cases, teachers spend more time teaching about Sharia Law!

 

So, what’s the answer to America’s ignorance?  Again, it is education.  If people understood the issues it would take to task the public school’s progressive agenda, the mass media’s bias in reporting, and the liberal politician’s threat to our national security.    

 

The truth contained in Holy Scripture is abundantly clear: 

“My people perish for a lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6)

“But through knowledge the righteous will be delivered.” (Proverbs 9:11)

 

I believe that God is in control; and because He is a just and righteous God, we will reap what we sow.  Only the Savior can save us; the state won’t and can’t.  If you are not ignorant and understand where I’m going, perhaps this popular phrase will take on a new meaning of prayerful appeal for God’s mercy and grace – “God bless America!” 

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Americans Increase Fear of Government over Terrorism

For the first time since the 9/11 terrorist attack, recent polls indicate that Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.  Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 280 – the polls suggest Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”

 

A Fox News survey … polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing … found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.  For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”  Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45% answered “no” to the question, compared to 43% answering “yes.”  In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40% answering “no” to 33% answering “yes.”

 

But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers changed dramatically, to 71% agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.  Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security.  Yet the numbers were declining from 71% following 9/11 to only 54% by May 2006.

 

Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.

 

A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.  “Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”  The poll found 48% of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41% who worry it won’t go far enough.  And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44% worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27% worried the government would go too far in January 2010.

 

The Fox News poll was unique in that it further broke the responses down by political affiliation: Bucking the trend, 51% of Democrats responded they would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36% opposed.  47% of Republicans, on the other hand, opposed giving up freedoms, compared to only 43% in favor.  Yet independents were the most resistant, with only 29% willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58% stood opposed.

 

These poll results make you wonder who or what is America’s greatest threat to freedom.  Is it terrorism or the U.S. government that prohibits our personal freedom?  Interestingly, either way it centers on ideology … whether Islamic jihad or party politics.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

America’s Choice: Christianity’s Benevolence or Islam’s Brutality

There is no denying that Christianity is under attack all over the world. Countries that are predominately Muslim are murdering, torturing and incarcerating people solely for their Christian faith.  Here in America our government sits on its collective hands and conveniently ignores the acts of violent Islamists that are planning to take more lives. Moreover, the very people entrusted with our nation’s security are protecting those of this global attack on Christianity.

 

I can’t help but believe that the Muslim Brotherhood has the ear of President Obama.  Why would Obama spend the beginnings of his second term working to infringe on the constitutional right of American citizens to bear arms … because of a mentally ill man murdering 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut? And yet, the many more lives taken (here and abroad) during his first term by acts of Muslim terror remain unaddressed. 

 

The Obama administration immigration policies and token border enforcement are providing a gateway for jihadists who no longer have to hide from federal authorities.  Instead, they are welcomed, fed, housed and protected … until they are able to execute more innocents.

 

At least two Muslim jihadists using bombs designed with Saudi financed al Qaeda internet support killed and injured some 180 Americans at the Boston Marathon; and our President recommends that we (once again) exercise restraint.

 

Twenty-first century liberalism is getting its butt kicked by stealth seventh-century anti-Christian Islamic principles; and this administration’s appeasement of Muslims is killing Christians all over the world.  Left-wing ideologues are shamelessly ignoring the distant and growing Islamic movement to exterminate “the infidel” from Muslim dominated territories.

 

President Obama has shown the world that he intends to provide aid and shelter to Muslims regardless of the costs in American lives.  We can no longer remain silent about the President’s clear and present threat to freedom and decency.  We can no longer allow future generations of Americans to be brainwashed to accept the violent ideology that is Islam as a protected religion. The world has fought this battle before; and if we fail to push back against the surge of tolerance that is protecting these monsters … America’s churches will burn one day.

 

Liberals may want to believe that we can Americanize yet another anti-American ideology. That is folly!  For decades, America tolerated communists and socialists, and now we have them running our country into the ground … leading national movements aimed at destroying our Constitution and grooming future generations of government dependents and purchased political patronage.  Our government is selling the dignity of government dependency.  After all, they say, everybody needs a little help from time to time.  It has been widely reported that one out of every five American families receives and is now dependent on food stamps.  Proud and thrifty American seniors devastated by the government corruption that caused our nation’s financial meltdown are reluctantly agreeing to living out the balance of their lives as government dependents.  History shows us that poverty is a serious weapon and frequently destabilizes a country’s moral foundation.  A nation dependent on a government for basics like food and medical care is easily influenced to abandon their belief systems and turn on others that refuse.

 

The Christian faith and our churches have been the poor’s greatest benefactor over the years.  These American institutions are currently under attack in America.  Everyday more Americans find themselves dependent on our Islamic-friendly government.  Make no mistake about it: If today’s administration supports America’s Islamification, then it will require the destruction of Christianity … one believer’s soul at a time.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Religious Liberty & LGBT Equality

Rather recently, Jay Michaelson wrote a piece for The Daily Beast entitled, “The ‘Religious Liberty’ Bullies and Their Fight Against LGBT Equality.”  In it, he suggests that those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons are the same as the racists who opposed desegregation laws.  He calls those who protect religious liberty, and who therefore are willing to stick up for the rights of religious people who oppose same-sex marriage, insincere and “racist,” as well.  “Today is a different age— but the players, and the rhetoric, are the same,” he states.  Later on, he says that defenders of religious liberty are “simply repurposing an old, racist rhetoric to fight the same social battles as always.”

 

Ken Blackwell of Townhall.com makes three points:

 

1. There can be no comparison between the fight for racial equality and the movement for same-sex marriage.

2. Supporting the traditional definition of marriage is not the same (or even akin) to supporting institutionalized racism.

3. Concerns about religious liberty are both sincere and valid, especially regarding the social trends Michaelson discusses in both his article and a related report he recently released.

 

Ken Blackwell (a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union) goes on to explain –

 

The matter of race occupies a singular place in our country’s history and laws.  Our country fought a bloody Civil War and passed three separate Constitutional Amendments to rid our society of the injustice that was slavery.  The segregation laws that followed were ugly remnants of a culture of racial slavery, and they were immoral and unjust.  They defied the American promise – “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Black Americans were enslaved, literally deprived of their liberty, often robbed of life, and denied the opportunity to pursue happiness.  Segregation laws were a legal statement of inequality.  No other law in American history spells indignity and injustice like they did, and no other law so explicitly rings false to our country’s founding principles.  Applying the racism of segregation-era America to today’s “social battles” does not make for a compelling comparison.  To state what should be obvious – Not all racists oppose same-sex marriage, and not all who oppose same-sex marriage are racists.  To say otherwise is disrespectful and frankly ludicrous.  No reasonable person is advocating “segregation” between the opposite-sex attracted population and the same-sex attracted population.  I don’t need to go into detail on this point.  It should be enough for readers to simply think of their own family, friends, and acquaintances— some of whom, no doubt, are uncertain about or against same-sex marriage— and realize that pairing “racist” with “opposed to same-sex marriage” means labeling many reasonable people as outright bigots.  That kind of accusation has heavy consequences and is dangerous to healthy discourse.

 

Marriage, as it stands and has stood for centuries, is not an institution that was driven into existence by bigotry, or constructed to deny some right to same-sex partners.  People who oppose same-sex marriage do so for a variety of reasons.  There are many who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons, and others for reasons grounded in history, philosophy, and our country’s Constitution.  What traditional marriage supporters generally want is to uphold a centuries-old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.  It is a fixed definition.  They see marriage as unique and unchanging, valuable because of (and contingent on) its singular male-female union, and meaningless without it.

 

The idea that those who are concerned about religious liberty rights in and around same-sex marriage are covertly advancing some right-wing agenda is misleading, false, and insulting. Religious liberty is a real, fundamental right, first in our Constitutional Amendments.  It’s what allows a man to be a conscientious objector, or a church to choose its own minister.  In general, it’s what protects religious people who hold views that are out of political favor. Michaelson admits that intellectuals and politicians on both ends of the political spectrum support religious liberty.  He simply thinks that religious liberty is much more limited than it is or ever has been.

 

As the recent cases against the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate demonstrates, America has a diverse and principled religious population of citizens willing to fight for the right to express their faith in all aspects of life.  That some, like Michaelson, don’t agree that buying contraception for others violates a person’s faith, does not suddenly appease the troubled consciences.  Those who advocate strong conscience protections— whether from a contraceptive mandate or from federal recognition of same-sex marriage— do so sincerely.

 

Ken Blackwell concludes: We can all agree that the topic of same-sex marriage draws intense emotions from both sides.  But those emotions do not justify branding people who disagree with us as liars or bigots.  That’s a cheap way to silence dissenters, when there is real and substantive debate to be had. It’s also a grave insult to honest, truth-seeking individuals, and a violation of the principles of American society.  All people should be free to explore and define their beliefs.  And all should be free to speak, act, vote and advocate according to their beliefs.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Gosnell is By No Means the Exception

It is of no surprise to me that we initially heard little-to-nothing from the national liberal media about the trial of abortions performed by Dr. Kermit Gosnell.  (The left-leaning media would never want the public to really know the gruesomeness of the abortion industry in American that has now killed over 52-million babies since the Row vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision in 1973 … because it would result in bring an end to this American holocaust.)  But the USA Today columnist, Kirsten Powers, brought light to this dark cesspool in Philadelphia (my birthplace) … posturing as an abortion clinic (operating without inspection for 17 years). Gosnell has been formally charged in the murder of one woman and seven infants.  However, the grand jury report and testimony of family and staff at the trial indicate that if there were records in this dump, where life was snuffed out daily, Gosnell would be indicted for the death of hundreds of live-birth children.  The national press got dragged unwillingly to report it because of Ms. Powers’ courageous column.

 

Despite the sense that no one was paying attention to the Gosnell story before Kirsten Powers wrote about it, you need to know that Dr. Gardner (founder and president of the National Black Pro-life Union), Dr. Alveda King (niece of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), and other pro-life activists were demonstrating outside Gosnell’s clinic as early as February 2011.  They held a press conference about the trial on April 4, a week before Powers’ column appeared.  Alveda King wrote in her blog the day before, “… Rev. Clenard Childress and Dr. Day Gardner … are in Philadelphia reporting on the Kermit Gosnell trial that the mainstream media is virtually ignoring.”

 

Just the other week, The Washington Times had reported that Gosnell-like conditions have existed at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Vice President Biden’s own backyard in Delaware.  The Times reports – “Abortions have been suspended at a Delaware Planned Parenthood, after several 911 calls made from within the clinic prompted a new investigation by Health and Human Services.”  Two nurses quit to protect their licenses, one saying, “I couldn’t tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was.”  According to the story – “Since January 4, five patients have been rushed to the emergency room.”

 

Last year pro-life activists worked assiduously to get press attention on the story of the death of 24-year old Tonya Reaves, who died after a botched abortion procedure at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic.

 

Why is it that this gets so little attention by mainstream media?  There are at least two reasons:

1. As a nation we still are willing to tolerate abortion.  We say that Dr. Gosnell should be convicted of murder because he botched an abortion.  Never mind that he destroyed (by brutal murder) a live child.  We somehow think it is okay if that same child dies while still in the womb. 

2. The filthy conditions allowing this butchery to take place all over the nation persist for the same reason that the Gosnell trial almost went uncovered.  The press does not want to report about the gruesome truths of abortion.  And, because it occurs disproportionately among low income, minority women, they are even less interested.

 

The sad reality is that while Gosnell's crimes may be an extreme case, he is by no means alone in his contempt for life.  The pro-life group Live Action just recently released two new undercover videos from abortion mills in the Bronx, NYC and Washington, D.C., revealing that both facilities might allow a baby born during a botched abortion to die.  At the Bronx “clinic,” a staffer discussing a late-term abortion said she would essentially drown the baby in a jar of solution to stop it from “twitching.”  When an investigator asked what she should do if the two-day long procedure caused her to go into labor at home and delivered a live baby, the staffer says, “Flush it!”  The D.C. abortionist was more artful with his choice of words.  When asked what he would do if a baby were born alive, he said: “Technically -- you know, legally we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive. … It's all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point.  Let's say you went into labor … and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know?  Then we would do things -- we would -- we would not help it.”

 

The practice of “after-birth abortions” is likely more widespread than most of us realized.  One of the left's biggest lies is that it stands for compassion.  Where does after-birth abortion fit into anyone's idea of compassion?  While most Americans rightly recoil in horror, too few realize that this is a legacy of Roe vs. Wade.  Some elites complain that the conservative movement is perceived as “uncaring.”  Yet they are the very same people who suggest we stop talking about issues like the sanctity of life.

 

So what can we do?  At minimum, we can demand that our tax dollars cease to fund our nation’s largest abortion provider – Planned Parenthood.  According to Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn), who has submitted a bill to stop funding Planned Parenthood, “Every 94 seconds Planned Parenthood performs an abortion and in that amount of time they take in over $1600 in federal taxpayer money.”

 

And to think that in the midst of this Gosnell trial, President Obama became the first sitting president to address the Planned Parenthood national conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the nation's largest destroyer of innocent human life.  His speech was full of distortions.  As is so typical of the left, Obama accused the pro-life movement of wanting to “turn back the clock to … the 1950s.”  He added that there is an “orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women's health.”  Isn't it amazing that in Obama's world, 1.2 million abortions a year is seen as progress?  It is obscene when Obama equates the killing of innocent unborn children with healthcare.  Pregnancy is not a disease!  Even accepting that there are occasions when a woman's life or health may be in danger, such circumstances are among the rarest of reasons why abortions are performed today.  Obama concluded with pledging his allegiance to Planned Parenthood, saying – “… I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way.  Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

 

Let me translate that for you: While we are cutting back on education, our military and benefits to our seniors, Obama will be there to make sure that your hard-earned tax money keeps flowing to Planned Parenthood to subsidize abortions and to make sure that no legislation preventing any abortion of any kind ever becomes law.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Choose You This Day

If anyone has been reading my blog postings (to date) they may falsely accuse me of being homophobic and a bigot; they might wrongly conclude that I hate gay people and lack the love of Jesus that I’ve proclaimed for the past 37-years of ordained ministry.  If that is their best analysis, then they are no doubt those simple-minded people who take the words of Jesus out of context and love to proclaim – “Jesus loves everyone … regardless …” Really?  Think again!

 

Since the time in which Christ Jesus established His Church some 2000 years ago, the Church has distinguished between the ‘sin’ and the ‘sinner.’  We can say with certainty that Jesus loves all people; but righteously hates the sinful acts of a deprived humanity.  In fact, God came to earth in the person of His beloved Son to die for the homosexual (and every other sinner); to shed His sinless blood on Calvary’s cross for the redemption of every repentant human being; and there paid the price for our sins, and provide the free (for us) but costly (for Him) gift of salvation.  Clearly, Jesus loves gays and lesbians; but hates the abominable acts of homosexuality as contrary to the truth of God’s Holy Word.

 

Undeniably, the Christian biblical worldview runs against the grain of today’s progressive thinking.  Many of America's young have come to accept that homosexuality is a natural preference of a significant minority and ought to be accommodated; and same-sex unions ought to be treated as traditional marriages.

 

Case in point: At George Washington University, two students have demanded that Father Greg Shaffer of the Newman Center be removed for creating an environment hostile to gays.  The priest's offense:  When President Obama endorsed same-sex marriages, Shaffer posted a blog restating Catholic teaching condemning homosexual acts as unnatural and immoral.  In private sessions, Father Shaffer also counseled gay students to remain celibate for the rest of their lives.  One senior, Damian Legacy, says he was shaken by Father Greg's admonition that he was risking his soul and by his ouster from the Newman Center after the priest learned he was in a relationship with a male student.  Legacy and his partner have filed complaints against the Rev. Shaffer with the university Office for Diversity and Inclusion, alleging his homophobia has had a detrimental effect on the emotional health of gay students.

 

Though a minor collision in the cultural war, this clash at GWU may be a forerunner of what is coming … as the homosexual community seeks to have its agenda written into law and openly practiced in society.  The traditional Christianity's view … that homosexual acts are immoral and same-sex marriage an absurdity … cannot be reconciled with the view that homosexuality is natural and normal, and gay marriage a human right.  Like abortion, it is an issue on which both sides cannot be right.  Yet it is an issue of paramount importance both to devout Christians and to the homosexual rights movement in America.

 

While today’s culture war may seem as a little skirmish, we have not begun to see the magnitude of battle.  A new era of civil disobedience is being prepared among the true people of God.  Which side will you be found to enlist your faithful service?  Choose you this day whom you will serve.  Like Joshua, I will serve the LORD!

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Demonizing of Christians in the Military

As many of you know, I spent the last twenty-five years of my life as an U.S. Army Chaplain where I fought the good fight of faith in the context of the military community.  In fact, at one time I was the Command Chaplain for the U.S. Army Reserve Command.  If I were yet in that position, I would find myself involved with the likes of these incidents that recently surfaced.

 

An U.S. Army Reserve unit in Pennsylvania was recently given a briefing on “Extremism.”  Within that PowerPoint presentation there was a slide (#24) under the heading “Religious Extremism” with more than a dozen examples of extremist groups. Al Qaeda was listed fifth. Hamas was sixth. The Ku Klux Klan was eighth on the list. At the top of the list was “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” was tenth.

 

The Department of the Army contends this was an isolated incident, and that the materials were not condoned by the Army. Sadly, that’s not true; for not long after there was news that U.S. Army LTC Jack Rich of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, sent a 14-page email warning of behaviors inconsistent with “Army Values” and warning about various groups that “do not share our Army Values.”  Among those groups listed in his email were neo-Nazis and the KKK, along with pro-family Christian organizations like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. 

 

Sadly, this is more evidence that left-wing activists who equate traditional Biblical values with bigotry and extremism have burrowed their way into the government bureaucracy and are even moving up the ranks of Obama's military.

 

The source for this briefing and email appear to have been the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center.  According to the American Family Association, the Southern Poverty Law Center brands anyone with a biblical view of homosexuality as extremist; therefore targeting the American Family Association who insists that the Bible teaches that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that same-sex relationships are sinful.  

 

Earlier this year, a report from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point labeled as part of the “violent far right” anyone who espoused “strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional rights.”  That could well be a majority of the country!  According to a Pew Research poll taking in February, 53% of Americans view the government as a threat to their liberty.

 

For decades, the political left has been on a cultural jihad to purge God and faith from the public arena. (Don’t forget last year’s DNC Convention that just about voted God out of their platform.)  The political left mocks Christian conservatives as “the American Taliban.” Now we are being told that believing marriage is between a man and a woman is bigotry.

 

When leftists outside the government condemn men and women of faith, why would we be surprised when leftists inside the government start producing reports calling Christians “extremists”?  If any fair-minded observer in the media wanted to figure out why there is such a concern about universal background checks and a national registry of firearms, he should look no further than this latest Army briefing and email, and he will see the left's routine demonization of normalcy.

 

Let me venture a guess as to why this is happening. It is the slippery slope of repealing the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy. As the administration began to demand tolerance for alternative lifestyles, the word quickly went out from the top that tolerance had its limits. LTG Thomas Bostick, then the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, said, “These people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out.”  Why, even the U.S. Army Chief of Chaplains (MG Douglas Carver) said as much to the Corps of Chaplains.  Since the repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (Dec 2010), we have gone from tolerance for homosexuals serving in the military to intolerance for men and women of faith serving in the military.

 

Don’t be fooled – There is occurring a direct assault on religious liberty.  It is blatant anti-religious bigotry that seeks to force men and women of faith into the closet.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Don’t Play Russian Roulette with Marriage (Part 3 of 3)

Continuation from 29 April and 1 May blogs

 

III. Homosexual couples should not be denied to marry.

 

Extending legal protection to sexual preferences and elevating personal sexual preferences to that of a “civil right” (ultimately leading to the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and marital entitlements) will not simply alter American culture and traditional marriage; it will destroy the culture and the sacred institution as we know it.

 

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages.” Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said it’s unrealistic to think the military would be out front of the rest of the government in offering benefits to unmarried partners. “They don’t do it for straight people, and they’re very unlikely to do it for gay people,” Frank said, unless, someone were to use the U.S. military to impose a risky “social experiment” to satisfy an agenda.    

 

The same-sex “marriage” movement has crystallized the difference between two distinct views of marriage:

·         The recent view advocated by same-sex proponents can be summed up as follows: “Marriage is an essentially private, intimate, emotional relationship created by two people for their own personal reasons to enhance their own personal well-being. Marriage is created by the couple, for the couple.” Under this view, the human arrangement is merely a private, and, perhaps in some cases a sexually intimate relationship that deserves a license by the government in order to obtain certain legally recognized benefits. This view of marriage believes that it is discriminatory to favor one kind of personal relationship (between a man and a woman) over other kinds of relationships (between people of the same sex). Those who advocate this private view believe marriage is “just one lifestyle choice among many.”

·         The historic view of marriage does not consider the institution to be merely a private relationship but rather a public good. What every known human society calls marriage shares certain basic, recognizable features, including most especially the privileges accorded to the reproductive couple in order to protect both the interests of children and the interests of the society. In every society, marriage is the sexual union where childbearing and raising is not only tolerated but applauded and encouraged.  By socially defining and supporting a particular type of sexual union, the society defines for its young what the preferred relationship is and what purposes it serves.

 

Understanding marriage as a public good is fundamentally different from viewing it as merely a private relationship. Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male and female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers. The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers; that societies need babies; and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so, as to give their children stable families in which to grow up and thrive.

 

The problem with endorsing same-sex “marriage” is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family norms, but it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults’ desires. The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not some sideline discussion. It is the marriage debate itself. Either we win or we lose the central meaning of marriage. The great threat unisex marriage poses to marriage as a social institution is not some distant or nearby slippery slope; it is an abyss at our feet. If we cannot explain why unisex marriage is, in itself, a disaster; we have already lost the marriage ideal.

 

Same-sex “marriage” would enshrine in law a public judgment that the public desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen “good.” It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine.

 

Marriage between one man and one woman is a public good that is best for society, and particularly its children and future generations. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” would equalize same-sex relations with marriage and parenthood. In doing so, marriage and parenthood would be severed, and the structure of children raised with a mom and a dad would suffer. It is one thing to tolerate personal relationships that are different from ours, but it is another thing for society to elevate such a relationship to a preferred status; and, that’s what same-sex “marriage” would do. To sanction same-sex “marriage” would be to say that there is no relevance to gender; and thus, result in the abolition of gender. Indeed, many same-sex and transsexual proponents advocate the abolition of gender, stating that the concept of male and female is an outdated, stereotypic model that needs to be abolished.

 

Once the government says that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state as a “marriage,” it becomes next to impossible to deny the same right to polygamous or even cohabitating relatives and friends. And once everyone’s relationship is recognized, marriage is gone; only a system of flexible relationship contracts is left.

 

Some would ask: Is equal protection violated by prohibiting same-sex “marriage?” Preserving marriage between one man and one woman does not violate equal protection any more than gender-specific restrooms. Marriage has never been open to any and every one. The Supreme Court has approved banning polygamous marriages, and most states ban incestuous marriages and place age restrictions on marriage. These restrictions have never been thought to violate equal protection.

 

Some argue that same-sex “marriage” proponents want marriage for its benefits. If benefits are the issue, then instead of deconstructing marriage itself, advocates of same-sex “marriage” should focus on the specific benefit desired rather than create a new form of marriage. Marriage is more than benefits. Marriage is a universal human institution. Marriage predated America, as it did every civilized society. Thus, before there was any law regarding marriage, marriage existed. Marriage is not merely a set of benefits. The laws and benefits associated with marriage are designed to support the institution because it is so fundamental to our society and future existence. Laws that promote marriage between one man and one woman to the exclusion of any other are supported by compelling governmental interests in the preservation of society and the public good.

 

Although for different reasons, same-sex “marriage” opponents and some states rights advocates oppose amending the Constitution to protect marriage between one man and one woman. Protecting traditional marriage is, and always has been, a federal matter. The act of amending the Constitution is an exercise in states’ rights. Marriage will be national one way or another. Either the courts will dictate marriage policy or the people will. If a federal constitutional amendment is not adopted, the courts will no doubt alter traditional marriage policy.

 

Now some argue that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, and thus should not license marriage. In this way marriages could consist of either private, religious or secular ceremonial services, but with no state sanction. While this argument has some surface appeal, it fundamentally misunderstands the importance of marriage and its impact on society. The state has always been empowered to regulate in order to protect the public health and welfare of its citizens. Thus, we have laws protecting our personal security and property rights. Although consensual, we have laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and private drug use. The reason society has chosen to regulate these areas of our lives is because these private acts have public consequences. The same is true with marriage. Marriage is not merely a personal, private act. Children are part of marriage, and as such, the greater society is affected.

 

It is neither wise nor desirable to deregulate marriage because, in so doing, our society would suffer. No, marriage is a public good, and it is precisely one of the areas in which the government should and must continue to regulate in order to protect the public good. Sanctioning same-sex “marriage” would have a profound destabilizing effect on the health, welfare, education and morals of the country. We should not play Russian roulette with marriage.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

 

Don’t Play Russian Roulette with Marriage (Part 2 of 3)

Continuation from 29 April blog

 

II. Homosexuals were born that way; and therefore should have the right to marry.

 

The typical definition of “sexual orientation” includes the status of being or the perception of being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual or even the most recent label, “questioning youth.” The definition itself includes the entire spectrum of human sexuality. Homosexual groups are lobbying to amend laws to include such terms as “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Homosexuals have attempted to point to certain “genetic” studies touting the idea that homosexuality is a genetically inherited characteristic. However, many of these studies are fraught with methodological flaws and are not replicated by reputable scientists. 

 

In contrast to these flawed methodological studies, more than 70 years of therapeutic counseling and case studies suggest homosexuality is a gender identification issue that is environmentally influenced. Homosexuals can change their behavior. There are numerous examples of changed sexual behavior documented in many studies, including the landmark research of Masters and Johnson. (From 1968 to 1977, the Masters and Johnson Institute ran a program to convert or revert homosexuals to heterosexuality. This program reported a 71.6% success rate over a six-year treatment period.  At the time of their earlier work, homosexuality was classified as a psychological disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, a classification which was repealed in 1973.)  A new website has since been launched by the American College of Pediatricians that cautions educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion.  (It was created by a coalition of health professionals to provide accurate factual information to educators, parents, and students about sexual development.) The college further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long, and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

 

Bottom line: There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic and, therefore, immutable. It is noteworthy that Dr. Robert Spitzer, the man who was instrumental in pushing the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder, has now acknowledged that homosexuals can become heterosexual. His (2003) treatment-outcome research concluded that change, though of unknown frequency, does occur for some individuals and that reorientation therapy should not be dismissed as a treatment option.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel