Dr. Chuck Baldwin Promoting Collectivism under the Guise of Liberty
Allison Bricker
THE REGION, INDIANA – As someone who came to the defense of Dr. Chuck Baldwin upon the release of the MIAC report last year, it is very disheartening to me upon reading his latest post to discover he is nothing more than a charlatan in the vein of Beck, promoting his brand of collectivism under the guise of Liberty. In his latest article, which from the title onward is filled with an over abundant use of logical fallacies and half-baked collectivist rhetoric, he attempts to correlate being queer, a government take-over of health care, and violating immigration law as one in the same, ergo “Guilt by Association”.
How he can resort to such nonsense after he was the victim of such flawed fallacy whereby the Department of Homeland Security via the MIAC sought to place him and his supporters on par with abortion clinic bombers is mind-numbingly depressing.
However, perhaps even more alarming is his dearth of knowledge on that of which he speaks, specifically stating in reference to homosexuality in the military he writes:
“…turning the modern American army…into a hodgepodge of foreigners, gang members, women, homosexuals, and mercenaries. (It worked out so well for Rome!)”
Dr. Chuck Baldwin
Up Next: Open Gays In The Military And Amnesty For Illegals
March 26, 2010
Well Chuck, first it was the Ancient Greeks who advocated open same-sex relationships in the military to boost morale1 prior to the assimilation in the Roman Republic proper. Perhaps Dr. Baldwin meant that the fall of Rome was due to homosexuals, in which case he would still be wrong as same-sex relations were well tolerated in Rome from prior to the reign of the notoriously flamboyant Caligula around 41 AD right up until the coronation of Theodosius in 380 AD.
Whereby, with Theodosius’ ascent to Emperor, he immediately outlawed the practice of all other religions, except for the Nicene orthodoxy of Christianity, forbid the Olympics, and closed down the Temple of Zeus. Further, he then ordered all Romans to pledge allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, and set about passing decrees restricting same-sex relationships punishable by death.2
Moreover, upon learning that the town of Thessaloniki revolted and assassinated his military governor for refusing to release a queer charioteer who made a pass at the governor, Theodosius ordered immediate retaliation upon the town resulting in the massacre of its 7,000 inhabitants including women and children. Consequently, after the death of Theodosius, Rome fractured never again to be united as one.
Thus, should my line of argument seek to pin the fall of Rome on one “Christian Soldier” type emperor who thought the appropriate retaliation was to murder and enforce religious doctrine by use of the state’s coercive power? Or should the example set by Theodosius taint my views towards all Christians as murderous thugs?
The simple fact of the matter is that Rome fell due to variety of circumstances ranging from perpetual Imperial Conquest, massive government subsidies, destruction of the currency, and the elevation of the “Executive Branch” i.e. the emperor over that of the Roman Senate, not due to the tolerance of one demographic or another.
Nevertheless, Dr. Baldwin then proceeds to attempt to buttress his skewed timeline of history with an appeal to the majority, i.e.:
“I have spoken with hundreds (literally) of active duty and retired frontline soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen, and I can unequivocally say that not one of them supported allowing sodomites to serve openly in the US military–especially in combat units. Not one! And the vast majority of them were also opposed to women serving in combat units.”
Dr. Chuck Baldwin
Up Next: Open Gays In The Military And Amnesty For Illegals
March 26, 2010
Well Chuck that is dandy, but just because a majority views something as proper and correct does not imbue said policy with morality. So using this logic, one could justify the invasion of Iraq, as a majority thought Saddam responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Alternatively, perhaps because the majority at one time thought women should also be prohibited from voting that should still be the case, or that a majority also once opposed integrating the armed services there should still be segregated barracks. Were any of these in hindsight valid reasons for the policy because the majority thought them to be the proper moral course?
Chuck, I am really sorry that possibly you and those who you have spoken with would perhaps prefer to see women barefoot, pregnant in the kitchen doing “women’s work” letting only the strong strapping heterosexual men be the ones killed in unnecessary war, but Chuck, have you ever considered examining another possible reason for lifting the Don’t ask Don’t Tell policy?
Has it ever occurred to the good doctor that perhaps the motivations behind lifting the Don’t Ask Don’t tell policy could be two-fold? While on the surface it appeals to the collectivist LGBT people group as fulfillment of campaign pandering, the actual motivation might just be based on cold calculated mathematical limitations.
That maybe with our military spread throughout the world in various never-ending conflicts, with many now going on their third and fourth deployments that perhaps lifting the ban and letting all who would like to serve helps stave off a more severe method, such as a draft or even longer deployments.
Let us face candid facts Chuck, the military is tired, the men and to your interviewees dismay the women too, are tired, weary of war, weary of being away from their families, and that excluding anyone at this point makes the aforementioned all that much closer to reality.
However, it seems unlikely dear Chuck that you would allow yourself to entertain such a possibility, as it would be counter to your main motivation, ergo your own self-promotion by inflaming divisions via wedge-issue collectivist tactics. With you as the opportunist hoping to seize upon those disaffected in general with politics and small segments of the liberty movement thereby allowing you to form your own little people-group to support your next run for office.
Shame on you, and how dare you sully the Liberty Movement with your self-aggrandizing attempt to link a socialist take over of the health care industry, and breaking the law with being queer.
WTF Chuck. (NSFW)
Source(s): 1“Homosexuality and Civilization” by Louis Crompton, Harvard University Press, page 69 • 2Elements of General History of Ancient & Modern” by Alexander Fraser Tytler, Oliver and Boyd Press 1872 •
