Ending 'don't ask, don't tell' would undermine religious liberty

[rivrrat]

But if non-coms and officers are required to go further in actively supporting and affirming homosexuality in a public manner, then yes that could be an issue. Again, it depends on how the new "openly serving" proceedures/protocols are implemented. Perhaps it won't be an issue; I hope it won't, we'll see I guess.

How would this be possible? In what context would someone have to actively support and affirm anyone's sexuality in a public manner? Do they have to do it for heterosexuals now?

What about Chaplains? Is it going to be forbidden for a Catholic chaplain to even mention that the Catholic church considers homosexual activity to be a sin? If so, how is a Catholic Chaplain going to resolve this question of being loyal to the US Armed Forces or being loyal to the Catholic church?

Why should said chaplain feel compelled to mention such things anyway? If he were pointedly asked, then yes, he should state what his beliefs are. That, in no way, has any LEGAL bearing on anything, which is what the whole DADT bull**** is all about. It's not about religious groups changing their beliefs or forcing them to preach differently. It's about our GOVERNMENT treating people equally. Two completely different things.

If a chaplain refused to speak to certain service members (for any reason), I would find that bothersome and he should probably find work elsewhere.

If a chaplain was giving sermon after sermon after sermon on how evil homosexuals were, I'd find that bothersome and he should probably find work elsewhere. Ditto if he was constantly preaching mysoginy (which is so evr present in the bible). Ditto if he was making unmarried, co-habitating soldiers (of any sexuality) feel unwelcome in his church.

 

[The Uncola]

You're all acting as if I said that homosexuality should be illegal, or the military should not accept gays, when I said no such thing.

What I said was that the author of the article might have a point or two, namely that those who feel religiously obligated (not motivated by hate or homophobia, but by religious obligation, assuming any of you can understand that there's a difference there) to view homosexuality as an immoral behavior might find their careers impaired because of that belief. I didn't say they would, I said it was possible depending on how this is implemented.

For the average soldier it may not be such a big deal. All they have to do is keep their mouth shut and their opinions to themselves. Ok, it's not like this is anything unusual in the military already.

But if non-coms and officers are required to go further in actively supporting and affirming homosexuality in a public manner, then yes that could be an issue. Again, it depends on how the new "openly serving" proceedures/protocols are implemented. Perhaps it won't be an issue; I hope it won't, we'll see I guess.

As someone said, at best we get a "don't ask, don't tell if you have religious reservations against homosexuality". :shrug: Okay, that could be tolerable, for most soldiers, noncoms and officers.

What about Chaplains? Is it going to be forbidden for a Catholic chaplain to even mention that the Catholic church considers homosexual activity to be a sin? If so, how is a Catholic Chaplain going to resolve this question of being loyal to the US Armed Forces or being loyal to the Catholic church?

Maybe you say "Well, let him resign and get out of the military then, the intolerant schmuck."

Okay, let's say all the Catholic Chaplains resign, and along with them half or more of the Baptist Chaplains, plus some others. Do you know how many soldiers are Baptist or Catholic? I don't know offhand, but if it isn't close to half I'd be surprised. Would it be fair to deprive half of our armed forces from having the comfort of a spiritual advisor/confessor/minister available?

All I'm saying is that yes, there might be some questions about how all this is going to play out, and at some point those questions might fall under the heading of religious liberty in the military in some sense.

Be sure you understand what I'm saying before you burn me at the stake for bigotry.

What leads you to believe anyone is not "understanding" what you are saying? That we don't buy it, because it's nothing more than bigotry dressed as something you pretend will be more acceptable? Paint all of the lipstick you want on that pig, it's still a pig.

If your "holy" bigots want to preach their prejudiced hatred, then they are free to do it outside of the military in their "churches." What they are not free to do, is bring it with them into the realm of the military that serves ALL of us.

 

[Goshin]

How would this be possible? In what context would someone have to actively support and affirm anyone's sexuality in a public manner? Do they have to do it for heterosexuals now?

The scenario that comes to mind offhand would be an officer or noncom being required to address the soldiers under his command on the issue of encouraging acceptance of homosexual soldiers. If he or she was simply required to explain military policy and rules and leave it at that, ok then. Probably that's as much as would be required of him... I can certainly hope that an evaluation that reads something like "Lt Someguy goes through the motions of supporting the new policy on gays, but appears to have mental reservations," would not impair his ability to get a promotion.

That appears to be one of the author's concerns. Maybe it is an overblown concern and it won't be like that, we'll see I guess.

Why should said chaplain feel compelled to mention such things anyway? If he were pointedly asked, then yes, he should state what his beliefs are. That, in no way, has any LEGAL bearing on anything, which is what the whole DADT bull**** is all about. It's not about religious groups changing their beliefs or forcing them to preach differently. It's about our GOVERNMENT treating people equally. Two completely different things.

If a chaplain refused to speak to certain service members (for any reason), I would find that bothersome and he should probably find work elsewhere.

If a chaplain was giving sermon after sermon after sermon on how evil homosexuals were, I'd find that bothersome and he should probably find work elsewhere. Ditto if he was constantly preaching mysoginy (which is so evr present in the bible). Ditto if he was making unmarried, co-habitating soldiers (of any sexuality) feel unwelcome in his church.

In general (aside from a couple of details but we'll skip over that) I agree with you. I would think some Chaplain who preached every Sunday on the evils of homosexuality was being a weirdo and had issues. A concern that I have is that Christian Chaplains are already being pressured to avoid praying "in Jesus' name" at military public functions, and for many of them this is provoking a crisis of conscience. If (and this is simply IF) it ends up being a written or "unwritten" order that they are not to mention their religion's view that homosexual behavior is sinful, this could also provoke a crisis of conscience for many.

Maybe all of this will work out and none of these concerns will turn out to be an issue: I certainly hope they won't.

 

[rivrrat]

The scenario that comes to mind offhand would be an officer or noncom being required to address the soldiers under his command on the issue of encouraging acceptance of homosexual soldiers. If he or she was simply required to explain military policy and rules and leave it at that, ok then. Probably that's as much as would be required of him... I can certainly hope that an evaluation that reads something like "Lt Someguy goes through the motions of supporting the new policy on gays, but appears to have mental reservations," would not impair his ability to get a promotion.

I don't see any reason why sexuality would have to be brought up at all. If there is a problem in the unit between individuals, then the issue should be addressed about that. Something more along the lines of, "We WILL all ****ing get along you asswipe, scumbags. GOT IT?! Now drop and give me 20!" :lol:

Why even bring up sexuality? All that need be addressed is acceptance of everyone who is a functional, performing member of the unit.

In general (aside from a couple of details but we'll skip over that) I agree with you. I would think some Chaplain who preached every Sunday on the evils of homosexuality was being a weirdo and had issues. A concern that I have is that Christian Chaplains are already being pressured to avoid praying "in Jesus' name" at military public functions, and for many of them this is provoking a crisis of conscience. If (and this is simply IF) it ends up being a written or "unwritten" order that they are not to mention their religion's view that homosexual behavior is sinful, this could also provoke a crisis of conscience for many.

Maybe all of this will work out and none of these concerns will turn out to be an issue: I certainly hope they won't.

Well, I don't think there should be public prayer at government gatherings anyway, so I have no sympathy for them not being allowed to say "in Jesus' name". But that's beside the point.

 

[Goshin]

What leads you to believe anyone is not "understanding" what you are saying? That we don't buy it, because it's nothing more than bigotry dressed as something you pretend will be more acceptable? Paint all of the lipstick you want on that pig, it's still a pig.

If your "holy" bigots want to preach their prejudiced hatred, then they are free to do it outside of the military in their "churches." What they are not free to do, is bring it with them into the realm of the military that serves ALL of us.

I don't usually reply to trolls, and I don't know why I'm bothering to do so this time... but I will try once more, and hereafter ignore you.

There is a difference between someone who believes he is religiously obligated to view homosexual activity as a sin, and being a bigot who hates gays. I freely admit to being the former, and vehemently deny being the latter.

If someone offered me proof-positive that I have been mistaken and that the Bible does not view homosexuality as a sin, I would immediately alter my viewpoint on homosexuality. My current position is that we live in a free nation with a largely-secular government, and that as such it is nobody's business what two consenting adults do in private... however, I am forbidden from saying "homosexuality is good and fine and moral" because of my religious beliefs.

Prove to me that I'm wrong within the context of my religion and I would immediately change my attitude and consider it a moral duty to be fully accepting of homosexuals. A "hater" could not and would not do that.

 

[The Uncola]

I don't usually reply to trolls, and I don't know why I'm bothering to do so this time... but I will try once more, and hereafter ignore you.

There is a difference between someone who believes he is religiously obligated to view homosexual activity as a sin, and being a bigot who hates gays. I freely admit to being the former, and vehemently deny being the latter.

If someone offered me proof-positive that I have been mistaken and that the Bible does not view homosexuality as a sin, I would immediately alter my viewpoint on homosexuality. My current position is that we live in a free nation with a largely-secular government, and that as such it is nobody's business what two consenting adults do in private... however, I am forbidden from saying "homosexuality is good and fine and moral" because of my religious beliefs.

Prove to me that I'm wrong within the context of my religion and I would immediately change my attitude and consider it a moral duty to be fully accepting of homosexuals. A "hater" could not and would not do that.

I can always tell have struck a nerve with someone when they resort to namecalling in their first line of a reply to me. As to the rest of your homophobic drivel, I already addressed it. I couldn't care less about proving anything as to whether something is right or "wrong in the context of my (your) religion" as I don't believe in magic superbeings or ancient fairytales and myths. Reply to me or not, I don't really give a crap.

 

[Goshin]

I can always tell have struck a nerve with someone when they resort to namecalling in their first line of a reply to me. As to the rest of your homophobic drivel, I already addressed it. I couldn't care less about proving anything as to whether something is right or "wrong in the context of my (your) religion" as I don't believe in magic superbeings or ancient fairytales and myths. Reply to me or not, I don't really give a crap.

Like I said: Troll.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I don't see why we can't take it by a case-by-case basis. You can't determine an ability to serve just because of an orientation label. There are probably people any of us know that could easily be gay and we'd never know just by looking because they're upstanding individuals who act and seem normal and average, with one glaring, unimportant characteristic.

In other words, this kind of gay man would be more than acceptable in the military:

This one would not:

A classic skewed approach to all things in life: the belief that appearance is a value or representative of one's abilities, skill or importance.

These things don't matter (can you pick out the straight guy? Neither can I)

Because in the military everyone will look like this (Can you pick out the fag? Neither can I)

And do this (Is he gay? I can't tell - I don't see any pinkie blings. But he's black, I *see* that much - so maybe he's on the down low and should be kicked out!)

and some of this (He must be gay, he's caring for a child, here - total flaming homo

So why does it matter so much what someone does here (OMG! This bed could go either way, let's burn it)

Obviously my point is that appearances DON'T mean a damn thing.
The focus, purpose and point of the military isn't to get in the damn bed and **** in a big orgy or roll around on the shower floor together - it's to do your assigned duties as best as you can and succeed at every mission you're given.

 

[Goshin]

A classic skewed approach to all things in life: the belief that appearance is a value or representative of one's abilities, skill or importance.

These things don't matter (can you pick out the straight guy? Neither can I)

Because in the military everyone will look like this (Can you pick out the fag? Neither can I)

And do this (Is he gay? I can't tell - I don't see any pinkie blings. But he's black, I *see* that much - so maybe he's on the down low and should be kicked out!)

and some of this (He must be gay, he's caring for a child, here - total flaming homo

So why does it matter so much what someone does here (OMG! This bed could go either way, let's burn it)

Obviously my point is that appearances DON'T mean a damn thing.
The focus, purpose and point of the military isn't to get in the damn bed and **** in a big orgy or roll around on the shower floor together - it's to do your assigned duties as best as you can and succeed at every mission you're given.

I'd be perfectly okay with that... as long as they're willing to accept my indifference and not insist I exhibit approval.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'd be perfectly okay with that... as long as they're willing to accept my indifference and not insist I exhibit approval.

Ah - yes - because your opinoin, approval and personal comfort is the military's TOP priority.
LOL - babe - they don't give a **** if you like what they want to do or not. You WILL do it, however, because you've been told. It's the miilitary, not a freaking therapy group.

 

[Goshin]

Ah - yes - because your opinoin, approval and personal comfort is the military's TOP priority.
LOL - babe - they don't give a **** if you like what they want to do or not. You WILL do it, however, because you've been told. It's the miilitary, not a freaking therapy group.

I'm perfectly aware of that. Odd that you bring this "its the freakin' military DO WHAT YOU'RE TOLD" thing NOW.... did you say the same during DADT? Did you say the same back when the military was racially segregated? Do you see what I'm saying here?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm perfectly aware of that. Odd that you bring this "its the freakin' military DO WHAT YOU'RE TOLD" thing NOW.... did you say the same during DADT? Did you say the same back when the military was racially segregated? Do you see what I'm saying here?

I expect all military personnel to follow orders and stick to the rules.

Even if that meant a gay man need to keep his relationship a secret - that's an issue to be waged and fought *not* at the peril of someone's career, but in the political and social field - where it is being dealt with and is being taken care of.

You can fight against something you don't support without actually violating those exact regulations and laws.

Example: I don't like the fact that I have to get a permit to work on my house every year. I complain and bitch but I still do what's required of me in effort to avoid breaking those codes that I so strongly abhor.

 

[Jerry]

Oh man, the religious right at it's worst.

My Take: Ending 'don't ask, don't tell' would undermine religious liberty – Religion - CNN.com Blogs

How will I be undermined once gays can serve openly?

 

[Jerry]

No kidding. And can you imagine the horror if they had to work with people who took their 'lord's' name in vain? How could they possibly be required to treat those sinners as "normal" people, to treat them equally? The bible says taking 'the lord's' name in vain is a sin, so they can NOT tolerate that kind of behavior. Being forced to treat those people equally removes their religious freedom.

Yeah but no one knows God's name, so it's all good (and no "YAWA" is not the name of God, it's an acronym of a description God gives of Himself. It's not a name)

 

[Aunt Spiker]

How will I be undermined once gays can serve openly?

They'll take your job and run with it, of course.
Because they'r ALL better than you.

:shrug: Shot in the dark - not a hit?

 

[Goshin]

I expect all military personnel to follow orders and stick to the rules.

Even if that meant a gay man need to keep his relationship a secret - that's an issue to be waged and fought *not* at the peril of someone's career, but in the political and social field - where it is being dealt with and is being taken care of.

You can fight against something you don't support without actually violating those exact regulations and laws.

Example: I don't like the fact that I have to get a permit to work on my house every year. I complain and bitch but I still do what's required of me in effort to avoid breaking those codes that I so strongly abhor.

Thank you for the clarification, what you said makes much more sense when explained.

 

[Jerry]

They'll take your job and run with it, of course.
Because they'r ALL better than you.

:shrug: Shot in the dark - not a hit?

I was looking for a serious answer.

 

[Goshin]

No kidding. And can you imagine the horror if they had to work with people who took their 'lord's' name in vain? How could they possibly be required to treat those sinners as "normal" people, to treat them equally? The bible says taking 'the lord's' name in vain is a sin, so they can NOT tolerate that kind of behavior. Being forced to treat those people equally removes their religious freedom.

I've politely asked people I work with not to say "God***n" around me, as I find it very unpleasant. Mostly they've politely complied with my request.

I had a lesbian boss for a while last year. She didn't insist on getting in my face about it, I didn't go out of my way to point out what my beliefs were about her lifestyle. If she'd asked, I would have politely told her the truth. If she'd ever started a conversation with me about homosexuality and religion, I probably would have expressed my viewpoint as politely as possible. She never did, so I never did. We got along fine.

Not sure I see your point here, really. I don't know many Christians who expect the world to "cater to their delicate sensibilities", we know darn well when we walk out the door in the morning that we're going to be around words, actions and behaviors that we don't approve of. Most of us don't ask that the world conform to our beliefs, we just ask that the world allow us to keep to our beliefs and not try to force us to say "oh that's fine" when we don't believe it is.

 

[rivrrat]

Yeah but no one knows God's name, so it's all good (and no "YAWA" is not the name of God, it's an acronym of a description God gives of Himself. It's not a name)

There are lots of gods with lots of names. But every christian priest I've had the displeasure of being around considered saying "goddamn" or "oh my god!!" to to be a sin. /shrug Personally, I couldn't care less how y'all interpret your respective mythologies. But most bible believers do consider it a sin.

 

[rivrrat]

I've politely asked people I work with not to say "God***n" around me, as I find it very unpleasant. Mostly they've politely complied with my request.

I had a lesbian boss for a while last year. She didn't insist on getting in my face about it, I didn't go out of my way to point out what my beliefs were about her lifestyle. If she'd asked, I would have politely told her the truth. If she'd ever started a conversation with me about homosexuality and religion, I probably would have expressed my viewpoint as politely as possible. She never did, so I never did. We got along fine.

Not sure I see your point here, really. I don't know many Christians who expect the world to "cater to their delicate sensibilities", we know darn well when we walk out the door in the morning that we're going to be around words, actions and behaviors that we don't approve of. Most of us don't ask that the world conform to our beliefs, we just ask that the world allow us to keep to our beliefs and not try to force us to say "oh that's fine" when we don't believe it is.

And where has anyone said that anyone has to believe something is fine that they don't believe is fine, or even state that they think it is?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I was looking for a serious answer.

The serious answer is that you won't be undermined purely for the 'gay' factor.
If anyone undermines it's because they have a superiority - skill, ability, position. . .Of course you know this - and this is what many people fail to understand, apparently.

 

[Goshin]

And where has anyone said that anyone has to believe something is fine that they don't believe is fine, or even state that they think it is?

Perhaps not in quite so many words, but the level of hostility in this thread is pretty revealing.

Originally Posted by Goshin
If my career path requires me to profess a belief that homo is OK, then I have a tough decision to make: throw my career out the window or throw my religious beliefs out the window.

That's the entire point.

No need to worry. The military will implement a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy where nobody will ask if you dislike homosexuals, but you will face court martial if your views come out. Its not discrimination, you can still serve, but you aren't allowed to flaunt your beliefs. Unit Cohesion is very important after all, and we couldn't risk unit morale suffering, so just keep quite about who you are. Sounds pretty reasonable right?

A. NO employer or "career path" can "force" you to "throw your religious belief out the window." That kind of crap is against the law.

B. In an employment situation where your peculiar brand of biased, bigoted religious discrimination runs counter to the laws of the land, I guess you can go to hell.

And frankly, I don't see a problem with that.

What leads you to believe anyone is not "understanding" what you are saying? That we don't buy it, because it's nothing more than bigotry dressed as something you pretend will be more acceptable? Paint all of the lipstick you want on that pig, it's still a pig.

If your "holy" bigots want to preach their prejudiced hatred, then they are free to do it outside of the military in their "churches." What they are not free to do, is bring it with them into the realm of the military that serves ALL of us.

Yup, lotsa love and tolerance here... :doh

 

[rivrrat]

Perhaps not in quite so many words, but the level of hostility in this thread is pretty revealing.

Yup, lotsa love and tolerance here... :doh

Who cares about tolerance from individuals? Irrelevant. All that matters is that our government treats people equally. And if you are a government employee, that means you too. You don't have to 'believe' squat. You just have to treat everyone equally whether you approve of who they're attracted to or not.

 

[Goshin]

Who cares about tolerance from individuals? Irrelevant. All that matters is that our government treats people equally. And if you are a government employee, that means you too. You don't have to 'believe' squat. You just have to treat everyone equally whether you approve of who they're attracted to or not.

Again: I don't have a problem with that.

There are some people that are concerned that it will be taken further than that. Perhaps they're worried about nothing. I hope so.

I'm tired of getting hammered from 5 different directions, so I think I "shall seek my entertainment elsewhere." :mrgreen:

 

[Jetboogieman]

I think in the end it's important to keep sight of one thing.

Keeping your freedom to keep others from getting their freedom... simply doesn't work.