Religious Right Watch

"The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers" in foreign militaries

Until January, 2000, when Britain lifted its gay ban following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, gay and lesbian soldiers were prohibited from serving in the British Armed Forces.

The first ten months of the new policy have been an unqualified success. The military’s own classified, internal assessment at six months found that the new policy has “been hailed as a solid achievement” (Ministry of Defense, 2000e, p. 2). There have been no indications of negative effects on recruiting levels. No mass resignations have occurred. There have been no major reported cases of gay-bashing or harassment of sexual minorities. There have been no major reported cases of harassment or inappropriate behavior by gay or lesbian soldiers. There has been no perceived effect on morale, unit cohesion or operational effectiveness. The policy change has been characterized by a “marked lack of reaction” (Ministry of Defense, 2000e, p. 2).

via www.palmcenter.org

The above summary is from the Palm Center, which released a new study on February 23, 2010. The new study concludes:

that foreign militaries that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly achieved success by implementing an inclusive policy quickly and under decisive leadership. The principal author of the study, “Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer,” is Dr. Nathaniel Frank, Senior Research Fellow at Palm, who last year published the book, "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.” Also contributing to the report was top expert on the British military, Dr. Victoria Basham, as well as a retired Captain in the Canadian Forces and several social scientists who study gender, sexuality, and military personnel policy.

(Photo: June 25, 2009, Israeli soldiers march in the gay pride parade in Jerusalem. Associated Press.)

Selective evidence is a manner of untruth. Jonah Goldberg's brazen intellectual dishonesty - an example of The Big Lie?

[Jonah Goldberg's book,] Liberal Fascism has distorted and polluted the public’s understanding of the nature of fascism....

One of the more striking aspects of Goldberg’s dishonesty is how he manipulates his definitions in self-serving fashion that lets him move the goalposts at will, as though we were playing Calvinball.  John Cole calls this “the Goldberg Principle”: "You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words."  For instance, his operative definition of fascism is actually just the generic definition for totalitarianism, and it omits entirely the special characteristics that distinguish fascism from other forms of totalitarianism.  One of these, for instance, is its overpowering, indeed dominant, antiliberalism – a fact that Goldberg conveniently omitted from throughout his entire 400 or so pages, and later dismissed by claiming that the “liberalism” it opposed was not modern liberalism, but classical liberalism (as though the two have no connection whatever).

Goldberg’s whole approach, for that matter, involves omitting contradictory factual information.  His thesis begins with a real fact:  fascism originally based its public appeal, like most right-wing populist movements, by claiming to represent a “neither left nor right” solution but a transcendent unifying force.  As such, it often made socialist-sounding appeals in its rhetoric, particularly in its nascent stages.  Goldberg explores this in depth by trotting out multiple examples of socialist-sounding rhetoric from fascists, as well as endorsements of fascism by gullible socialists.  As Michael Tomasky noted in his scathing review for The New Republic:

Yet for all his chapter and verse on the proletarian rhetoric that Nazis employed, Goldberg somehow forgets to mention certain other salient matters, like the fact that within three months of taking power Hitler banned trade unions--and on the day after May Day, 1933.  Their money was confiscated and their leaders imprisoned.  And the trade unions were replaced with the Nazi "union" called the German Labor Front, which took away the right to strike.  Hitler did many worse things, of course.  I single out this act because it would hardly seem to be the edict of a "man of the left." And there exist about a million nearly epileptic quotes from Hitler and Goebbels and other Nazis expressing their luminous hatreds of liberalism and of communism, none of which seem to have found their way into the pages of Liberal Fascism.

Goldberg responded by arguing that the fascists were just foreclosing on their competition:  “All that need be said is that if Hitler’s ban on independent trade unions disqualifies him as a leftist, then Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were not leftists either.”  This is, in fact, the argument that Goldberg attempts to make in his book as well:  That the fascists occupied the "political space" on the Left, and thus were simply out to compete against their fellow leftists.

But this is where Goldberg most deeply portrays a lack of respect for the historical material available to him, because any careful study of the actual details of how the fascists came to power in both Italy and Germany makes abundantly clear that they were occupying the available political space on the right -- and had charged hard in that direction from early on in their drive to power.

via www.hnn.us

The above is from David Neiwert's article on History News Network. (Hat-tip to Chip Berlet.) There is intellectual dishonesty in Jonah Goldberg's notion of "liberal fascism." It's as viable within clear-headed discourse as "chocolate stove," "fringed fart," or "glass pants." It is, in fact, close unto an oxymoron, like "dead life." It becomes strongly viable only in discourse where participants accept a strange epistemology, a worldview that allows for a statement to be taken as fact merely based on its political convenience or dependent upon all evidence against the statement's validity to be left unaired or considered to be invalid.

It may well be an example of the notion of The Big Lie: a lie so brazenly told as to seem credible, especially if it is repeated often; it is a a proposition that recklessly defines or redefines terms--or doesn't define them clearly at all and allows an intended audience to fill in the gaps with prejudicial thinking--and is based not on honest or clear reasoning, but on loudness and some manner of deceit, usually in the form of selective-only evidence and sometimes utterly invented evidence. Yet, it can become accepted, taken as  as more or less true, even in large segments of a population, just as are notions of global Jewish conspiracies in parts of the Islamic world today.

"Angry Voters, Right-Wing Populism, & Racial Violence: People of Faith Can Help Break the Linkages"

We are in the midst of one of the most significant right-wing populist rebellions in US history as illustrated by the Tea Party and Patriot movements. Will religious and progressive activists provide a voice and outlet for populist fear and anger or will these dispossessed voices find a home among the potentially violent elements of the far right? 

via www.religiondispatches.org

Click the above link to read Chip Berlet's article.

A conservative case for same-sex civil marriage rights

The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships....

.....

Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations....

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others.... I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

via www.newsweek.com

Former US Solicitor General Ted Olson in Newsweek has made the conservative case for extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples. It's a case made on this blog, most recently here. The conservative case for marriage is one grounded both in the principle of equality under the law and pragmaticism.

Libertarian-leaning conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan's reaction.

You can read Olson's opening statement as prepared (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) here.

Texas "Revisionaries" set the national textbook agenda

The jovial creationist sits on the Texas State Board of Education, where he is one of the leaders of an activist bloc that holds enormous sway over the body’s decisions. As the state goes through the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting the standards for its textbooks, the faction is using its clout to infuse them with ultraconservative ideals. Among other things, they aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement.

via www.washingtonmonthly.com

 

"Divorce Rate in Gay Marriage-Legal MA Drops To Pre-WWII Level"

gay marriage has little impact other then 1) allowing gay couples to marry and 2) providing marriage fees for clerics who conduct such marriage ceremonies.

via www.huffingtonpost.com

Bruce Wilson's above assessment is correct, and his article's list of "predictions about gay marriage prior to its legalization in Massachusetts" is damning of social conservative imbecility about the issue.

Allowing same-sex couples to be granted civil marriage licenses hurts nothing and helps a minority.

It does not "redefine" any traditional marriage. It does not in any way affect a religious institution that disallows or any individual member of any clergy who eschews the performance of a ceremony for a gay couple.

(Hat-tip to Ken Sherrill for the article. Image: MakeItEqual.org)

"A proud way to start the new year"

This week, New Hampshire joins a small fraternity of states and countries to permit gay marriage - a powerful statement to the nation and the world that New Hampshire will no longer treat some residents as second-class citizens.

via www.concordmonitor.com

Granting same-sex couples the right to enter into civil marriage contracts should be the law of the land because it "promotes the general welfare," as is one of the stated foundational goals of the Constitution of the United States.

Granting same-sex couples the right to contractual (that is, legally recognized by way of a marriage license) and civil (that is, secular, non-religious) marriages would harm no one yet help a minority still subject to stereotyping and bigotry in both law and in everyday life in too much of the republic.

The personal bond undergirding a same-sex civil marriage as well as the actual codified rights and responsibilities that a marriage license brings (more than 1000 such benefits at the federal level) would promote the same positive personal and societal consequences that they do for a traditional marriage. First, the personal benefits are clear. Numerous studies have found that for most people marriage results in increased personal satisfaction. But, beyond that there is even more. Marriage for a couple, same-sex or traditional, can ameliorate self-centeredness by giving each member of the couple a greater stake in one another's well-being and a greater stake in society. In fact, job performance, fiscal stewardship, and community betterment can all be enhanced as a consequence. Retirement planning, vacation planning--and presuming cohabitation and home ownership--everything from grocery purchases, mortgage payments, and the safety-related, economic stability, and general improvement concerns for the neighborhood are all investments of time and resources that are promoted by marriage, traditional or same-sex.

To ban or discourage same-sex civil marriage is to ban or discourage those potential personal and societal benefits described above, and thus is an abject opposition to the promotion of the general welfare. What is more, it is probably a move based in some measure in animus against the gay individual because it is to demand that Americans who happen to be gay be compelled under the law to stay forever single. Why would any human being who knows the value of human companionship use the state--or any other powerful force--to such a thing? It is reprehensible.

To ban or discourage the potential personal and societal benefits stemming from same-sex civil marriage is something else, too, not just societally unhelpful. It is to hold cheap life-long committed relationships of same-sex couples in general. That there are already gay couples who though personal, emotional commitment alone have stayed together for many years without any incentive from the law shows clearly that there can be a bond between two gay men or gay women that in myriad ways is effectively at least as strong as the bond between a married man and woman. That bond if between a man and a woman is promoted by the state; the marriage license brings with it everything from hospital visitation rights to immigration rights, taxable income implications to inheritance rights. If the bond is much the same in a same-sex couple, shouldn't the state promote it through marriage for them, too?

Right now, extending to same-sex couples the right to civil marriage promotes the general welfare within the jurisdictions of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire (pending), Vermont, and the Oregon-based Coquille Indian Tribe, but only to the extent that state or tribal law is affected. Why should that be the limit? Extending to same-sex couples the right to civil marriage should be done at the federal level, too, so that the laws that matter most to a couple are reformed, and as soon as possible.

Robert P. George, the Conservative-Christian Big Thinker - NYTimes.com

Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic...is this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.... George had drafted a 4,700-word manifesto that promised resistance to the point of civil disobedience against...same-sex marriage.

via www.nytimes.com

Letter to Archbishop Wuerl, et al

Dear Archbishop Wuerl, The Most Reverend Michael P. Driscoll, MSW, DD and Sr. Donna Markham, OP:

I am concerned about your stated plan to cut back Roman Catholic social services in Washington DC in the event of the District extends the right of civil [i.e., non-religious] marriage to same-sex couples.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Summary of the Law--to love the LORD completely and your neighbor as yourself--is a commandment contingent upon political fortunes or cultural winds of change. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25, Christ does not say that he will ask of those he will judge, Did you defend marriage? but rather: Did you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, and more? He continued: for as much as you have or have not done these things, you have or have not done them to me.

The idea of using charitable work as a negotiable commodity seems at odds with the commands of Jesus.

Religious Right lies about ENDA

Alvin McEwan at Pam's House Blend outlines some of the falsehoods the Religious Right, including the American Family Association (AFA), is spreading in an attempt to stop anti-discrimination legistlation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). As Alvin rightfully encourages readers to stand for truth by dissiminating accurate information.

Distortion: ENDA (H.R. 2981 - H.R. 3017 - S. 1584) has been changed from the "gay-only" version the House passed in 2007 to include language banning job discrimination based on "gender identity".... It would mean your child's teacher, if he were a male but "felt" like a female, could go into the women's bathroom.

TRUTH - ....over 100 localities (cities and counties) in the United States have trans-inclusive non-discrimination laws. There has never been a problem of a man "claiming to feel like a female" invading women's bathrooms. The claim is a non-issue created to scare people and distract from the true purpose of ENDA.

Distortion: ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior - homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of "sexual orientation" that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace.

TRUTH - ENDA says nothing about sexual behavior.

ENDA does not grant employers or demand of them any manner of special consideration toward anyone. Period.

Distortion: ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their deeply held beliefs into account when making personnel decisions....

TRUTH - "Deeply held beliefs" are no excuse for discrimination of any stripe. A capable employee should not be fired simply because his or her boss has a “deeply held belief” against homosexuality. [There] is already.... [employee] protections in the cases of race, religion, gender, and national origin.
.....

Distortion: [A] Christian school that was hiring a secretary, janitor or football coach would not be allowed to reject a homosexual who applied for the slot.

TRUTH - The religious exemption of the 2009 version of ENDA (Section 6) has the same exemptions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); 2000e-2(e)(2)).

Any unproven fear stories about churches being forced to hire anyone not conducive to their message or beliefs are just that - unproven fear stories.