Family Research Council Advertises Military Humanism
The Family Research Council has chosen to celebrate Humanism as a way to advance its agenda of hate against LGBT persons. FRC has accepted a guest blog from an anonymous (and prudent) Air Force officer. The blog lays out the case that because humanists tend to support LGBT rights, that the DoD pro-LGBT policy is endorsing a religious viewpoint, namely humanism. They presumably want to use that argument to advance their anti-LGBT agenda.
And before continuing, we hope the folks at FRC will accep a very sincere Merry Christmas. We don’t celebrate religious Christmas here at MAAF, but we understand you do, and we hope you have a great time!
From the FRC Blog
Department of Defense directive (DODD) 1020.02E commits the logical fallacy of equating “sexual orientation” with physical characteristics such as gender and skin color. This mischaracterization has enabled the DOD to promote the “religion” of Humanism by celebrating LGBT Pride Month, similar to monthly celebrations of ethnic groups. While the DOD celebrates Humanist beliefs, it also reprimands those who oppose these beliefs.
The sad news for FRC is that the attempt to use humanism as a poison pill for good sense has been tried and failed. Legally, and by any rational argument, it does not follow that something is religiously unconstitutional purely because a religion happens to support the idea. This argument has traditionally been used to oppose the teaching of evolution in schools. The argument goes that because humanists accept science therefore teaching science is a religious act. However, the fact is, science stands on its own regardless what religious or secular beliefs people may hold. Francis Collins ennobled humanity by sequencing the human genome with science despite holding to some extreme and anti-scientific religious beliefs. Aside from the personal history, this distinction has been held in court including in 1987 Mobile Alabama court decision. This is a case often happily and wrongly put forth as government establishment of secular humanism as a religion (as noted, the court only assumed religious humanism temporarily for the purpose of discussion).
[E]ven assuming that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the establishment clause, Appellees have failed to prove a violation of the establishment clause through the use in the Alabama public schools of the textbooks at issue in this case. … use of the challenged textbooks has the primary effect of conveying information that is essentially neutral in its religious content to the school children who utilize the books; none of these books convey a message of governmental approval of secular humanism or governmental disapproval of theism.
If a government official implements a policy primarily due to their religious beliefs, that is an unconstitutional imposition of personal religious views by a government official. So every time a chaplain or military officer or other government official chooses, an account of their religious beliefs, to refuse service or benefits to an LGBT person, that is an unconstitutional establishment of religion in government. And we know that chaplain endorsing agencies currently restrict their chaplains from doing their duty for all, and yet those chaplains still draw a salary and have access to the men and women of our military. Maybe FRC should be cleaning their own house, ensuring their own personnel are not imposing their anti-LGBT religious beliefs in contradiction to religiously-neutral government policy.
The United States government and its military for almost its entire history has discriminated against LGBT persons. In researching the positions of military chaplain endorsing agencies regarding LGBT policy, MAAF many religiously-motived contradictions of policy. But we also conceded, “It is fair to say that the military changed but the chaplains did not.” Many chaplains now work in a role their religion prohibits: One that requires equal rights for LGBT persons. Just as LGBT persons needed for so long to serve in the closet, now anti-LGBT government officials have a tough choice of personal conviction or military policy. Unlike LGBT persons, those anti-LGBT persons are attempting to inflict their beliefs on others. Someone has to be in the closet or out of the military so long as anti-LGBT organizations exist. We live in a happier world and have a stronger military now that the anti-LGBT folks are the only victims of anti-LGBT bigotry.
FRC advocates for an exclusively anti-LGBT Christian position. MAAF does not intend to decide what ‘right’ religion is. Many Christian persons and institutions including the United Church of Christ and Alliance of Baptists have unqualified support for LGBT equality. The FRC and many chaplain endorsing agencies advocate an anti-LGBT version of Christianity. The FRC has no respect for pro-LGBT Christians, saying in their blog: “Clearly, the LGBT movement does not submit to the authority of the Bible.” This anti-LGBT, anti-humanist, and even anti-Christian stance makes their position of intolerance even more damaging in the DoD.
The truth is that LGBT equality became a reality due to Christianity more than humanism. Humanism was cheering all the way, as early as a 1972 resolution by the American Humanist Association saying homosexuality should not be the subject of legislation. LGBT persons themselves who, like the general population, lean Christian, are the ones who deserve credit for equality in our military. While we appreciate the vote of confidence from the FRC, we humanists must decline this praise.