Video: Tony Perkins disinvited from military prayer luncheon for criticizing repeal of DADT?

posted at 8:40 pm on February 26, 2010 by Allahpundit

After reading about this for two days, I still can’t find a record of precisely what Perkins said to alienate the base chaplain who canceled the invite. If he really has been disinvited for doing nothing more than opposing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” it’s a disgrace. He’s a Marine, he claims he wasn’t planning to say anything political at the luncheon, and he is, after all, in line with the military’s official policy on gay servicemen. (The Corps’ commandant expressed his own support of DADT two days ago.) Disagreeing with The One shouldn’t make you persona non grata. If, however, he said something more incendiary, then it’s a question of how incendiary was it. Politico cites this recent quote on the Family Research Council website — “Do not let our military be used to advance a radical sexual agenda” — which is essentially boilerplate for a religious leader, but Perkins has had more colorful things to say in the past.

Long story short, this is a test case on how the military’s going to balance creating a comfortable environment for gays in the ranks with the rights of religious servicemen to disapprove vehemently. The chaplain’s statement via the Wash Times:

“The Joint Base Andrews Chaplain’s Office sponsors a voluntary, annual prayer luncheon, focusing this year on deployed personnel, families and prayer. The Chaplain’s Office retracted Mr. Perkins’ invitation after his recent public comments made many who planned to attend the event uncomfortable,” the office said in a statement.

“This was a local decision made by the Chaplain’s Office who wanted the luncheon to be inclusive for the entire base community. The Chaplain’s Office respects and defends Mr. Perkins right to express his opinions, and regrets any inconvenience to him. We thank and respect him for his prior military service.”

And Perkins’s reply, seizing the political moment, via CBN:

I am very concerned, however, that this merely foreshadows the serious threat to religious liberty that would result from repeal of the current military eligibility law. Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct.

Military chaplains would bear the heaviest burden. Would their sermons be censored to prevent them from preaching on biblical passages which describe homosexual conduct as a sin? Would they remain free to counsel soldiers troubled by same-sex attractions about the spiritual and psychological resources available to overcome those attractions?

Conservative leaders are lining up behind him. The civilian protocol here would be to let Perkins speak and allow protesters outside, but political demonstrations aren’t encouraged on military bases. Why not invite him and balance him with a gay speaker at some later date, then? I don’t get it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

His rejection is simple . . . dissent is not allowed in a totalitarian state and therefore he will not be heard in this poor sick country.

rplat on February 26, 2010 at 11:15 PM

No one is saying that he can’t express his views. It’s just a matter of when and where. Do you want everyone petitioning the US Government for the right to go onto bases to talk to the troops whenever and however they want?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM
But this decision came from the Chaplain’s office. Perkin’s position on DADT is harmonious with current military policy. Chaplain’s stay out of the political stuff, normally. Unless you have a senior officer who has an agenda…..

conservative pilgrim on February 26, 2010 at 9:22 PM

Just to be clear:

He was invited to speak. Then disinvited.

The topic of this event “Getting Back to Basics”

(It was in the first thread in the Headlines yesterday I believe)

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 26, 2010 at 11:17 PM

While our little country is drowning in debt and joblessness and leaderlessness it’s really really gay that Mike Pence thinks he needs to make “appropriate inquiries” about whether or not some evangelical princox should get to prance around in front of some marines.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Prayer Brekfast eh!

May the CinC, and the gay cadre uncover
themselves in each other’s artificial embrace.

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on February 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM

While our little country is drowning in debt and joblessness and leaderlessness it’s really really gay that Mike Pence thinks he needs to make “appropriate inquiries” about whether or not some evangelical princox should get to prance around in front of some marines.

Yeah, let this one slide… it’s Perkins for one thing… if it was anyone less partisan then I would start to wonder…

ninjapirate on February 26, 2010 at 11:54 PM

No Chaplain ever had to choose between his faith and the military.

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

If I am not mistaken, I believe that Catholic chaplins are actual priests who were allowed to serve in the military. I’m sure they will get guidance from the Church on this which will probably mean that most, if not all will resign their commissions rather than promote homosexuality.

Bill R. on February 27, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Yeah, let this one slide… it’s Perkins for one thing… if it was anyone less partisan then I would start to wonder…

“Do not let our military be used to advance a radical sexual agenda”

BTW, if there is a full repeal of DADT then there’s no way the Defense of Marriage Act will survive after the lawsuits come in through lack of accommodations…

ninjapirate on February 27, 2010 at 12:08 AM

BTW, if there is a full repeal of DADT then there’s no way the Defense of Marriage Act will survive after the lawsuits come in through lack of accommodations…

ninjapirate on February 27, 2010 at 12:08 AM

Reality is not your strong suit, huh? A full repeal of DADT? Do you have any idea what happens after that? Let me tell you.

The qu33rs get hunted down and thrown out. All of them. Why?

Because federal law is that qu33r acts in the military a crime.

So I say leave it alone which makes me a more compassionate person than anyone who wants repeal of DADT. They want the witch hunt to start so they can look like victims and play the victim card. They hate America and they hate the military and they just want to start a conflict so they can Rahmbo it (don’t waste a good crisis).

The Congress will NEVER repeal DADT because the voter backlash would be overwhelming. So get real, ninja. No more fantasyland hypotheticals, please.

platypus on February 27, 2010 at 12:19 AM

Reality is not your strong suit, huh? A full repeal of DADT? Do you have any idea what happens after that? Let me tell you.

The qu33rs get hunted down and thrown out. All of them. Why?

I think you’re the one with the problem… that isn’t happening now and isn’t going to happen…

ninjapirate on February 27, 2010 at 12:24 AM

If I am not mistaken, I believe that Catholic chaplins are actual priests who were allowed to serve in the military.

Bill R. on February 27, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Yes, there are Catholic priests who serve in the military chaplaincy (active duty). With all chaplains, it goes back to your endorser, i.e., the denomination or faith tradition that endorses you to be in the military. If your endorser pulls your endorsement, then you’re out of the chaplaincy.

The type of chaplains in the military depend on the needs. For example, the needs of Buddhists are minimal, so they have government contract positions for those chaplains. You won’t find a Jehovah Witness chaplain because there is no need for them. Keep in mind the variants of each faith tradition like Protestants (Episcopal, Lutheran–Missouri Synod and ELCA, Methodists, Presbytarians, all types of Baptists, etc.) or Judaism (Reformed, Orthodox, Conservative) and there is a lot of diversity. A lot a lot.

Generally, the chaplains uphold the basic tenets of their faith tradition in ministerial contexts. In the military context, well, they conform to the military standards.

So, with Catholics–you’ll find the majority will adhere to Catholic doctrine. Currently, the military provides the chaplain the option of not participating in something that goes against their religious convictions and tradition, but not if say a Muslim Chaplain does not want to address a woman because she is a woman or shake her hand based on his beliefs (yes, this has happened.). It would be disastrous if Obama meddles with this policy and forces military chaplains to participate in activities contrary to their convictions and beliefs.

conservative pilgrim on February 27, 2010 at 12:31 AM

you’re the mostest compassionate one

happyfeet on February 27, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Mr. platypus I mean

happyfeet on February 27, 2010 at 12:37 AM

FoF is a lot like Scientology how they pretend there’s all this science that props up their creepy perverted ideology I think.

Nasty little cult.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Cult? Maybe you should stick to words you comprehend….

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 27, 2010 at 12:53 AM

Just wait until this is repealed, if it does get repealed, Christian soldiers are going to be targeted. They will be questioned. They will be watched.

Being a Christian does not always indicate that a person favors discrimination against gays. Many Christians choose not to parse sins. Many Christians recognize that we are all sinners.

Repeal DADT. Get on with it.

The Race Card on February 27, 2010 at 1:41 AM

Being a Christian does not always indicate that a person favors discrimination against gays. Many Christians choose not to parse sins. Many Christians recognize that we are all sinners.

Repeal DADT. Get on with it.

The Race Card on February 27, 2010 at 1:41 AM

All you dipsticks that are pushing to repeal DADT don’t understand that this is going to be part and parcel of military life. Anyone who opposes will be punished accordingly.

People like the “race card” have no understanding of military life, the forced cohabitation, etc. There’s a reason that the head of the marines had the guts to say what so many of us think.

of course, the implication by the race card here is that if you are HIS kind of Christian, you won’t have a problem. Otherwise, it’s your fault.

TTheoLogan on February 27, 2010 at 4:50 AM

BTW, Perkins is a former marine himself, but apparently that’s not good enough for boobs like “the race card” here. He needs to be a pro-homosexual marine.

TTheoLogan on February 27, 2010 at 4:52 AM

Are you saying being Gay is a sin or engaging in sin?

hawkdriver on February 27, 2010 at 6:52 AM

“the answer to whether homosexuality is genetic or not is who cares

I have links. – happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 11:04 PM”

So you have THE Answer, does it make a difference?

SC.Charlie on February 27, 2010 at 7:15 AM

I am very concerned, however, that this merely foreshadows the serious threat to religious liberty that would result from repeal of the current military eligibility law. Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct.

This is getting funny. DADT is going to be kept, but it will now apply to those who oppose open homosexuals serving in the military. Pretzle logic.

“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”

JiangxiDad on February 27, 2010 at 7:41 AM

The Chaplain’s Office retracted Mr. Perkins’ invitation after his recent public comments made many who planned to attend the event uncomfortable,” the office said in a statement.

Wow. That’s the sort of p.c. standard used on college campuses by the thought police. Anyhoo, I am “uncomfortable” with Barack Obama’s public comments about, well, just about everything, so I demand he resign.

Buy Danish on February 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Buy Danish on February 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Now and then a terrible thought enters my head involuntarily, and I fight to banish it.

What if what we fear will happen if we don’t stop things now, has really already happened, and quite some time ago? Are we living in the same country we grew up in? Is it already too late to ever get it back, at least for those of us now alive? Did we lose?

JiangxiDad on February 27, 2010 at 8:47 AM

JiangxiDad, the battle is always on anew in every generation. If you’re frustrated that you won’t see fulfillment, that means you’re thinking long-term, and it’s short-term thinking that got us this messed up, so you’re on the right track. As to whether that’s a hopeless struggle, ask a Pole or a Vietnamese.

Chris_Balsz on February 27, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Chris_Balsz on February 27, 2010 at 9:33 AM

You just reminded me in a very nice way to stop belly-aching and navel-gazing and keep fighting. Thank you. I think I will.

JiangxiDad on February 27, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Platypus, where is that wealth of evidence that homosexuality is just a HABIT?

SC.Charlie on February 27, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Being a Christian does not always indicate that a person favors discrimination against gays. Many Christians choose not to parse sins. Many Christians recognize that we are all sinners.

Repeal DADT. Get on with it.

The Race Card on February 27, 2010 at 1:41 AM

But many Christians also recognize we’re not suppose to stay in sin. We don’t have to. Yes, the Bible says (totally paraphrasing) a righteous man can fall or stumble many times a day, but, he gets back up again!
Jesus told the mob that brought the prostitute to him, that was caught in the act, the mob wanted the prostitute stoned, (it was the law of the time) Jesus told this mob “Whoever has not sinned, throw the first stone.” Well, nobody threw a stone. Starting with the oldest to the youngest, they each one by one dropped their stones.
Then Jesus turned to that prostitute and ask her “Where are those who condemn you? Is there anyone left?” She replied, “No, Lord.” Jesus said then, “Then neither do I condemn you.”

We love to end the story there. But Jesus said one more sentence. He said “Now, go and sin no more.” This is found in John 8: 1-11

JellyToast on February 27, 2010 at 10:21 AM

JiangxiDad on February 27, 2010 at 8:47 AM

My comment was meant to be an ironic look at dangers of political-correctness, and the endless kowtowing to the “victims” who have a newly discovered “right” not to feel “uncomfortable”.

Buy Danish on February 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Are you saying being Gay is a sin or engaging in sin?

hawkdriver on February 27, 2010 at 6:52 AM

The bible says it is an act of sin, therefore I believe it is, as I believe the entire word of God. Man can say and do what he pleases but in the end the Word of God does not change. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

royzer on February 27, 2010 at 10:35 AM

My comment was meant to be an ironic look at dangers of political-correctness, and the endless kowtowing to the “victims” who have a newly discovered “right” not to feel “uncomfortable”.

Buy Danish on February 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Yes, I understood that. I was just adding that it’s apprently the “new normal,” and has been for awhile. Many things are now the “new normal”…

JiangxiDad on February 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM

For me this is really less about repealing DADT and more about all the victimization of gays that will naturally follow. All of the sensitivity trainings, all of the other things that must change in order to accommodate this small class or group of people. It is less about the gay individual and more about the radical gay agenda of gay activists. There seems to be no separating the two. I posted a week ago somewhere around here that it would be one thing if this were being done by Bush and a Republican congress, this is going to be something quite different when attempted by Obama and his minions. And I wish the gay conservatives would understand that.

In a perfect world I don’t know how much I’d really care whether gays served openly or not. In a perfect world we could all agree to disagree and still get along. But it isn’t a perfect world.

Obama doesn’t really care about gays in the military. He does care about ripping all things Christian and all things conservative.
And the military has a tradition of conservative values. It has a tradition of voting more Republican than Democrat. And if gay conservatives think that Obama isn’t thinking along those line, I think gay conservatives are being a tad naive.

JellyToast on February 27, 2010 at 11:31 AM

My comment was meant to be an ironic look at dangers of political-correctness, and the endless kowtowing to the “victims” who have a newly discovered “right” not to feel “uncomfortable”.- Buy Danish on February 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM

DADT is supposed to make the “regular” people “comfortable” while allowing gays to serve…………… so long as they don’t know you are gay.

SC.Charlie on February 27, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Sinning is a sin.

The Race Card on February 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

The Race Card on February 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

No sinners in the military.

The Race Card on February 27, 2010 at 2:22 PM

How about a diversity law where those that think homosexual behavior is a sin must be represented 50 percent in all workplaces and government positions.
A democrat presidential candidate must swear that homosexual behavior is not a sin now, so they need to have some diversity in government.

PrezHussein on February 27, 2010 at 2:25 PM

blink on February 27, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Admit equally, punish equally. Are admitted adulterers denied the chance to serve based on their sexual transgressions?

The Race Card on February 27, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Admit equally, punish equally. Are admitted adulterers denied the chance to serve based on their sexual transgressions?

The Race Card on February 27, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Actually, when I was stationed in Germany, the First Sgt. of my company did punish anyone he discovered was married and messing around on the side. He did not tolerate adultery. He and our Capt. agreed it affected morale. There were people I knew that were cheating on their wives, but it was under the radar. No one bragged about it. I saw more than one soldier get an article 15.

JellyToast on February 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Should we allow adultery to go unpunished in the military?

Or do you think that would run afoul of good order and discipline? – blink on February 27, 2010 at 2:33 PM

How many are dismissed from the military for committing adultery and having a messy divorce?

SC.Charlie on February 27, 2010 at 4:24 PM

JellyToast on February 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM

That’s an interesting and important anecdote. Thank you for sharing.

The Race Card on February 27, 2010 at 4:29 PM

The US military is going down and will continue to go down if PC is not rooted out. First, women in the military in combat (pregnancies, watching out for them because we women are the weaker sex, whatever feminists want to claim), then sexuality being even an issue (it should not even be brought up, it is not a military issue, period), then rules of engagement that kill our soldiers or put them in prison and under persecution by this administration AND the previous, allowing muslims unscreened into the military. With conditions like that, I will never allow my sons to join the military. If something does not change, the military is doomed as the CIA has become doomed, full of libs like Valerie Plame. We have the BEST soldiers, the best of the US men go to the military and PC will destroy these men and the military

immigrantchick on February 27, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Why not invite him and balance him with a gay speaker at some later date, then? I don’t get it.

Because this is how the military works, AP. Part of its task is to remain apolitical, and that means averting political controversy rather than putting the military in the middle of it.

There’s no question that trying to balance the political views of speakers at religious devotional functions is, inherently, involvement in politics. To even make the attempt implies having noticed the speakers’ political views, and working from an attitude about the.

Doing it would unnecessarily open up military decisions to criticism on political grounds. No officer is going to do that deliberately unless he’s got a personal axe to grind, and is ready to cut his ties to the service anyway.

It’s not that the military is defenseless against the politicization of homosexuality. It’s that an affirmative institutional embrace of homosexuality, one that deters and punishes disagreement, will BE the military’s defense. That’s the point I’ve been making for some time now. This is a good illustration of it.

J.E. Dyer on February 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Buy Danish on February 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Excellent suggestion! I hereby declare he resign now as well.

I am not in the military so I am not sure I have the right to have a say in this argument, but I have a lot of friends and family in the military and they tell me repealing DADT is going to be be an epic failure. My neighbor who returned from his deployment in Fallujah said it always made him uncomfortable even thinking about it. He’s ten years younger than me, and he’s quite handsome, with a gorgeous girlfriend that looks like Kimberly Guilfoyle, so I can see why anyone would be attracted to him, besides the fact that he is funny and a really great guy. He saves me from mice that only seem to come in our house and we have a cat! He’s my hero in so many ways as any guy who will deal with a screaming freak (me) over a little tiny dead mouse is #1 in my book!

margategop517 on March 1, 2010 at 12:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2