Well said and extra points for including “Shitbirds”.
Its hard to point out the difficulties to someone who has never expereinced the system but this is a biggie and I fear the future if this goes through for the reason you pointed out.
I loved that word (“shitbirds”). We’d use other euphemisms, including “Ninety Percenters” for the 10% of our troops that would cause us 90% of all our operational and administrative problems, as well. I’m with Colonel Hawley straight down the line about the operational impact this move is going to have. Implementing the policy change would be another set of huge headaches I wouldn’t want as a commander, either. We’re in the middle of two wars and we’ve got brushfire actions going on all over the world. We don’t need this change right now. Apparently, even Bob Gates agrees. He was very lukewarm to the idea of repealing DADT at this point…
I can honestly state that I don’t know any Christians from my church or any past church who hated homosexuals.
Sin is sin. They’re being gay is no worse than me cursing the guy who almost sideswiped me today.
… Yet gays are banned from being clergy. Just attended a wonderful wedding officiated by a close friend who is gay. He was forced to accept a call from a different denomination because he was banned from serving as minister of a mainline denomination (our loss). I know of all sorts of wonderful folks who don’t hate gays, yet support all types of discrimination. Likewise, many whites didn’t “hate” African Americans, yet supported segregation. People are kinda funny, aren’t they … ;(
“Sara’s mother raised an interesting point on the radio today. She asked why Sara could not serve the Army in a civilian capacity. She understands the Army rules and why her daughter was dismissed, but, feels Sara should be able to serve in a civilian capacity to fulfill her scholarship requirement. That sounds reasonable to me.”
One thing I would say is that the civilian DoD and military hiring processes are entirely separate. It’s not a thing where you can just cross back and forth, as I’m sure you know. Military serve generally for a set number of years, and have all kinds of milestones at which the service can get rid of you. Civilian service is much different, and absent gross negligence, it’s almost impossible to fire a civilian, in my experience. Apples to Oranges, I guess. Second, although I’m not sure what the terms of her scholarship are specifically, that money is given based on the expectation that the recipient is going to give certain things in return. Namely, they’re going to deploy, serve in combat units, whatever. I’m not sure if a DoD civilian job would result in comparable payback for the scholarship. Lastly, as you said, the rules are the rules. I’m fairly certain her scholarship agreement states that she will forfeit the moeny and have to pay it back if she’s dismissed for certain things like conduct. That means she legally, by the terms of her agreement and by the UCMJ, has to be “fired” from the military and pay back her scholarship.
I’ve seen midshipmen dismissed or quitting USNA, and they have all had different situations afterwards regarding their tuition. Some had to pay it back, some didn’t, and some couldn’t, so they served some time Enlisted. Because of her particular situation, serving Enlisted time really isn’t an option.
I think you may have misunderstood my point. I wasn’t actually commenting on the military and its acceptance of gay people. I was just saying that I wish more people who call themselves Christian, and who often very vocally claim to hold themselves to a higher standard, would exercise the same dignified grace and acceptance that you do. You don’t need to condone their lifestyle, but you also aren’t judging them - which is nice to see.
At the same time there are mainstream denominations that welcome and affirm gay members and clergy…
Yup, and there is very little difference between most mainstream denominations. This points to the fascinating paradox “What makes good people have incredibly wrong viewpoints, and how do we minimize the harm?” Our history is full of wonderful people being on the absolutely wrong side of history, with catastrophic consequences. As Steve said, “there’s plenty of sin to go around.” The sobering part is that some of my most strongly held beliefs are almost definitely wrong, from God’s point of view. (Not that I’d ever admit that in the LR)
I have, upon acceptance of this Catholic belief, held myself to a higher standard-and found that i always disappoint my God and myself. For my part here on this forum, I am reminded mostly of the Biblical admonition about dropping your coins into the the collection jar in a public manner. My struggles are my own; my contributions are my own; my prayers are for Many but in saying this i am starting to drift away from my anchor point so it will be the last i’ll say of it.
My snap thought based on the content of your posts is that I hope you are a full bird and promotable. You are the type of person I would like to see manage this if (when) it happens.
My personal religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong, but the God who Loves me also Loves these same people to the same degree–and I am the last person to throw any stones at them being a sinner myself. So if they are in trouble with God because of this personal predilection that is between them and Him; not me–He’s got His own problems with me and i am constantly trying to work on those.
If only more Christians (and those who call themselves the same) shared your beliefs…
In terms of light-to-heat ratio, he consistently tops my list of value posters here. If only we had a Steve Hawley from every sector of discussion topics.
But I draw the opposite conclusion from his post. I think it’s more emblematic of what’s wrong with religious belief in general than what’s right with certain practitioners. I’ve never looked at homosexuality as anything more than an expression of how an individual is wired. It would never occur to me to make a value judgment, or view it in terms of something I must either agree with or disagree with. There are a few religious members in my family that share this view, but they’re certainly the exception to the rule. Most, like Steve, feel compelled to frame it as a moral, and thus religious issue on which they must take a stand. Mostly, it’s in strident opposition; occasionally, it’s reluctant tolerance; rarely is it full acceptance.
If the most we can expect from even the most thoughtful and tolerant (consider the literal meaning of the word) religious adherents is to tolerate this so-called sin, and view it as personal failings equal to their own, I find little there to celebrate. Though I certainly appreciate the process by which people come to these positions, and the difficulty it poses.
To quote my creationist/evangelical former coworker:
“God hated homosexuality so much that he destroyed an entire city because of it.” When I gave him the “what would JC do?” scenario, he simply said that God would either have to be a liar or a schizophrenic to hold a different position as JC.
This conversation came after he came to found out that one of his old friends has come out of the closet. He was going to take it upon himself to convince this guy to not be gay.
Otherwise, despite being an awful coworker, he was a really cool guy. Had plenty of interesting conversations about evolution.
Now is NOT the time to tackle this animal. Its outcome is inevitable but in a time of war not the time to get after this issue.
The proposal only commits to repealing DADT, but the implementation is not now, but is pushed later, and is left to the Pentagon. This particular law itself will do absolutely nothing in the short term to impact military preparedness. You are mixing up the issues with passing this law (which are purely political issues, tied to a legitimate concern that conservatives will block repeal indefinitely, perhaps in opposition to the Pentagon), with the actual implementation of the policy (and you have expressed your concerns about that). People in the military are increasingly aware that DADT will probably disappear. In fact, keeping ambiguity on this issue does a disservice to enlisted folks and potential recruits, regardless of their view on the issue.
Now is NOT the time to tackle this animal. Its outcome is inevitable but in a time of war not the time to get after this issue.
The proposal only commits to repealing DADT, but the implementation is not now, but is pushed later, and is left to the Pentagon. This particular law itself will do absolutely nothing in the short term to impact military preparedness. You are mixing up the issues with passing this law (which are purely political issues, tied to a legitimate concern that conservatives will block repeal indefinitely, perhaps in opposition to the Pentagon), with the actual implementation of the policy (and you have expressed your concerns about that). People in the military are increasingly aware that DADT will probably disappear. In fact, keeping ambiguity on this issue does a disservice to enlisted folks and potential recruits, regardless of their view on the issue.
I cannot help but draw parallels to racial integration of the military during WWII. While I fully understand and appreciate the differences between race and sexual orientation, I keep hearing the same arguments raised. If one wants to talke about a critical time in military history, one cannot get more critical than WWII. Despite wide-spread and loudly-voiced concerns about destroying our military, we somehow managed to remain an effective fighting force which rose to victory. While the repeal of DADT will be difficult and “acceptance” of openly gay individuals will be controversial, I have no doubt the military will survive, even in these difficult times.
“God hated homosexuality so much that he destroyed an entire city because of it.” When I gave him the “what would JC do?” scenario, he simply said that God would either have to be a liar or a schizophrenic to hold a different position as JC.
That is my favorite argument and the one that trips up the holy rollers. How to you reconcile God’s alleged “hatred” for homosexuality with JC’s message of acceptance?
"What makes good people have incredibly wrong viewpoints, . . . "
You say this as if these points of view are not opinions but are absolute facts. The irony is that many of those folks also feel these things are absolute facts, as well. The difference in the details of the viewpoint.
Man you are a tough one to please. If I don’t adhere to my religion in a perfect Christ-like way I am phony. If I do adhere to my religion I am rigid. If choose to show tolerance it’s not enough. Where’s the tolerance from you? I tolerate your leftist, secular viewpoints but I don’t accept them. That doesn’t mean I don’t love you! (Not in a man on man way)
Being former military, I have mixed emotions about gays serving openly in the military, but I will keep those opinions to myself, as I may not articulate them as well as the subject deserves.
Man you are a tough one to please. If I don’t adhere to my religion in a perfect Christ-like way I am phony. If I do adhere to my religion I am rigid. If choose to show tolerance it’s not enough. Where’s the tolerance from you? I tolerate your leftist, secular viewpoints but I don’t accept them. That doesn’t mean I don’t love you! (Not in a man on man way)
Hence my final sentence in that post. As I wrote, it’s not so much a criticism of the adherents as it is the belief system. It’s easy for a guy like me who’s unburdened by such beliefs to lodge this sort of criticism, but not so easy for others. I get that. I recognize the difficulty that some religionists face in reconciling their personal beliefs with existing dogma or doctrine, and I don’t love or respect those people any less for siding in opposition to my views. I’ve said before (and you have a good memory, my friend) that I respect the fundamentalist view of religion, though I have no use for their beliefs or the product of their beliefs put to action.
Steve’s post was, in my view, a perfect example of how even the best among us are forced into what I believe are unnecessary choices. I appreciate that it’s a more hospitable position than many other religionists take, though it still falls short of what I believe is the ideal.
And for what it’s worth, most of my favorite people in this forum are anything but secular leftists. I don’t just tolerate your views, I appreciate them for how they help shape and reshape my opinions.
And though it needn’t be said by now, I love you too man. You’re good people.
