Article by Cameron Spink

 

I was going to leave the topic of homosexuality alone for some time, however, this story has grown so big that I feel that it can't be ignored. Rick Perry is one of the many candidates vying for the Republican nomination to face off against Obama. For us Aussies, that means he is conservative (and he is even in comparison to other Republican hopes Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich). Now the chances are that Rick Perry won't get close to being given the candidacy from the Republican constituency. This is mainly due to his inability in the debating arena and forgetting things that he really shouldn't forget (though this is forgivable and can be paralleled with Obama's 57 states comment in the last election).

 

I am not going to discuss Rick Perry's presidential ambitions, though I believe he is one of the best candidates for the job, I am going to talk about this video:

 

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

This video packs a lot of content into a very small space and leaves Rick Perry wide open to scathing criticism, and this criticism has come. If you look at the like/dislike bar there is over 675,000 dislikes and this will continue to grow. It is a safe assumption that this will dethrone the many Justin Beiber songs that reside at the top of the youtube dislike list (only by default because Rebecca Black took her "Friday" video down). Now the criticism has reached our shores and, more specifically, Perry has been attacked by our tabloids. In yesterday's Age (and the Sydney Morning Herald) there is a story titled Ten parodies of Rick Perry's 'Strong' ad.

 

A portion of these videos are somewhat amusing while others parody Perry with stinging personal attacks. From the outset this has me disturbed. Obviously there will be many people who don't agree with Perry's message but to claim that you are working towards tolerance while throwing damaging and hateful mud at another person is counter-intuitive. You may think that his message is lies and dangerous but the challenge must be directed towards the ball and not the player. As it is, many of these parodies/attacks can be written off because of the inability to deal with the actual content of Rick Perry's video. You can't score points by dehumanising and mocking someone without an intellectual argument of your own.

 

This brings me to the content of Perry's video. For those of you too lazy to watch the thirty-one second clip he says:

 

"I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there is something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.

As President I'll end Obama's war on religion and I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.

Faith made America strong, it can make her strong again."

(note: this is verbatim but does not include his strong Texan accent)

 

There are three central points to this video. Firstly, there is something wrong with homosexuals serving in the military. Secondly, there is something wrong with Children not being able to celebrate Christmas or pray in schools. And finally, faith is the key to the future of America.

 

The first argument is clearly the most contentious and divisional part of Perry's message. Unfortunately it seems that this is mostly a gut-reaction to somebody talking about homosexuality in a bad light. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was passed in the US Congress last year and abolished this year by the Obama administration, much to the delight of celebrities like Lady Gaga. This policy, in its basic form, was that homosexuals could serve in the military as long as they were not openly homosexual.

 

The repeal of this was hailed by homosexual activists as a win for human rights and equality. But was Don't Ask, Don't Tell a good policy and, therefore, the new policy troubling? Initially, it must be said that this change has occurred from outside pressures rather than a push from within the military. Sure, there were some who wished Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be repealed but these people were a small minority. Also worth noting is that, while Scripture describes homosexuality as a sin (unless it is revised), this does not necessarily mean that we, as Christians, need to oppose whatever homosexuals are lobbying for. We do not need to be reactionary in this way. If we oppose the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell we should have solid grounds for doing so. After all this policy is a form of discrimination, the question is whether it is a reasonable form of discrimination?

 

It is worth pointing out that a fairly recent study has revealed that a large percentage (this article quotes 75%) of 17 to 24 year olds could not serve in the US military (mainly attributed to obesity etc...). From this we can gauge that there is blatant discrimination occurring in the selection process. Obviously, though, this discrimination is warranted. But does this extend to those who are openly homosexual? It is likely that their aptitude and capabilities as military personnel on the field cannot not be faulted (at least not any more so than anyone else). Is this the only criteria?

 

The biggest change that will occur is that there will be a dichotomy shift within the military. A shift that will have far-reaching consequences. As Albert Mohler says:

 

"From the nation's birth, the armed forces have held an established place as a culture-forming institution. Our national life is shaped by several institutional forces, but few hold the power held by the U.S. military. The public's admiration of the armed forces is enhanced by the reality of civilian control over the military, and service in uniform has been an important means of establishing national identity and culture.

The results of this influence have been overwhelmingly positive. The successful racial integration of the military was indispensable to the civil rights movement. The military has preserved national values of honor, courage, and service. Few institutions can compare to the massive influence of the military in shaping national culture.

That is why the normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces has been such a central goal of the homosexual movement. The three most significant institutional barriers to the full normalization of homosexuality in the society are the military, laws governing marriage, and the churches. For this reason, all three of these institutional forces have been directly targeted by those who would push for the full acceptance of homosexuality. A focus on these institutions is essential if homosexuality is to be recognized on an equal moral and cultural footing with heterosexuality. There is no surprise here.

It must be recognized that the normalization of homosexuality within the U.S. military will have effects far beyond the armed forces. The most immediate changes will appear closest to where the military is concentrated, both geographically and culturally. Businesses doing work for the armed forces, individuals offering housing and a host of services to military personnel, and others similarly connected to the armed services will be the first to be required to respond to these effects and to conform to the new military reality. From there, the circles of the military's influence will extend to the rest of the society in one manner or another.

The rejection of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is not just about the military - and that is why so much effort has been directed to its repeal."

Albert Mohler - Homosexuality and the Military - What's Really at Stake?

 

Many people will see the normalisation of homosexuality as a good thing. I do not and my fellow Christians should not either. It is worth considering what Scripture directs on this issue (and it does have a voice). 1 Timothy 2 states the balance between the individual and the state:

 

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:1-4

 

Military service is a good and noble pursuit. It is an act that puts the individual at risk for a higher cause. However, we must be aware that "we do not wage war as the world does" (2 Corinthians 10:3). The fight for the human soul is the most important and worthwhile battlefield. If we are fighting for our country, yet not allowed to battle for the souls of those in the military around us then our purpose is empty and the hope of freedom will never be achieved.

 

There are obviously practical implications to this policy change, as well. Homosexuals serving in the military pose a similar issue that would occur if we spoke about shared barracks. It is obviously not very PC to say so (just ask Jason Akermanis) but this is the reality. We must, then, ask whether it is in the best interests for homosexuals to be serving in the military and bunking with the same sex who they may be attracted to? Now the APA will tell you that homosexuals are just as effective a soldier as anyone else on the battlefield, however, this does not alleviate said problem which is exacerbated by the overwhelming evidence regarding homosexual promiscuity (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/07/13/on-fidelity-or-the-lack-thereof/). This changes the act from perhaps "purely a private matter" to something that could undermine a Regiment's ability to operate in the field.

 

I will skip Perry's second point because that would transform this article into a very long article (if it wasn't already). His final point is that faith is the key to America's future. I heartily agree with him on this point as I believe faith is the key to Australia's future as well. Many people will rebut this by yelling "separation of Church and state". It should be pointed out that the original intention of such a concept was not to protect the state from Church influence (i.e. the Christian worldview) but to protect the Church from outside influences diluting the message of the Gospel.

 

If we are to turn to Scripture then we realise how important it is that God play a central role in politics. Littered through-out the Old Testament are stories of God's influence on His chosen nation and their interactions with other pagan nations. While the New Testament revealed the mystery that salvation belonged to both Jew and Gentile equally we still must recognise the importance of God in our nation today. After all, He will judge the nations of the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) and bless them. God has destroyed cities before because of their blatant misuse of sexuality against what is natural (Sodom and Gomorrah - Jude 1:7).

 

There have been many responses to Rick Perry's video. Most of them are from diametric worldviews which are easy enough to dismiss. Some, however, claim to come from a Christian worldview. Take these two girls, for instance:

 

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

This is an example of a knee-jerk reaction. Not only that but they talk about "bridg[ing] the gap of vast differences among our fellow Americans". They combine this with a message of grace but this is a cocktail that is going to emulsify rather than mix. We must not dilute the Gospel in order to bring more people to Christ, this is counterintuitive. Their point that one cannot use their Christianity as a platform is valid, to a point. Being a Christian does not determine whether one will be a good leader. One merely needs to look at Obama's claims to being a Christian to see this. However, a leader without faith in our living God is like a ship captain without a compass. It is only a matter of time before they pilot the ship into harms way. Against such a person God's fury will burn.