The Southern Baptist Convention is battlling President Obama's administration's efforts to repeal the, "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy. The policy had banned openly gay members from serving in the military. Chaplains, both active and retired, have been asked to weigh in on the issue. SBC chaplains may have some clout. When combined with evangelical groups, they make up over 1,000 chaplains. The total of faith groups serving as chaplains as of March of this year according to the Department of defense: Southern Baptist Convention 448, Roman Catholic 252, Assemblies of God 119, United Methodist 110, Seventh-Day Adventists 43, Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints 37, Orthodox 25, Islam 10, Judaism 21, and Buddhist 1.
So what do you think?
Serving in the military is not a right. There are all kinds of restrictions on who can serve. There are weight limits, age limits, physical fitness requirements, health requirements, education requirements...the list goes on. These restrictions / requirements are set to allow for the training of the most combat effective units (not individuals necessarily). They facilitate good order and discipline. The federal government shouldn't ask the military leaders to organize, train, and equip the best military in the world and then force political issues on them without the input of military leaders (to include chaplains). The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has made comments in support of gay rights...but that is his personal opinion not a collective consensus. I say let the military determine their own requirements. BTW...the same folks pushing openly gay rights to serve in the military are the same that argue against gay marriage. Hmmmm...
ReplyDeleteIf we had allowed the military to determine their own rights,Blacks would not be in combat, or Officer Positions. They would be banned from being Pilots. The regulations you speak of are requirements that would physically hinder combat effectiveness. Homosexual Military Personnel have already proved that their sexual orientation is not a hinderence to their effectiveness as a military person. This policy is as arbitrary as saying that Blacks are Intellectually and emotionally unable to participate in complex military situations.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with your statement that sexual orientation does not relate to performance as an individual in a military role. But again, it isn't about one person...it is about creating a cohesive fighting unit. I think the US military is right in researching the impact on operational and tactical effectiveness. If our country operated under a true democratic system we could simply vote on it. Hey…the polls show the majority of US citizens support openly gay men and lesbian women serving in the military. However, the majority of US citizens aren’t in the military. I'm not arguing for or against gays serving openly...I'm saying let the men and women (our nation’s fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters) who are serving have a say. The protection of their rights and beliefs is important too.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with your African-American argument. Once the legislation banning African-Americans from serving was repealed (1776!) the military actively recruited blacks for combat. Societal norms dictated the treatment (segregation) of Blacks…not the military. As a matter of fact during the Spanish Civil War an African-American Officer, Oliver Law, commanded the first integrated unit of soldiers! This runs counter to your argument. I would say the treatment of African-Americans in the military was progressive and ahead of the “times”. Your assumption that the military needs to have laws passed forcing them to allow African-Americans to hold a key roles is not accurate. You’re arguing a hypothetical that cannot be proven.
I brought up restrictions and requirements to make the point that serving in the military is not an entitlement. Less than 10% of the US population is gay. Over 34% of fighting age Americans are overweight. There are lots of jobs in the military that don’t necessarily require military members to be fit (administrative personnel). Should we stop discriminating against them? Shouldn’t a group representing the obese be suing for the “right “ to serve? No.
I'm not sure what the big deal is - statistically, based on the sheer number of people enlisted, there has to already be plenty of gay people serving in the armed forces, they just don't talk about it. Gay marriage is one issue, as most Christians see the act of marriage as something deeply entwined with the Christian faith itself - a covenant with God. The military is a different animal altogether.
ReplyDeleteI tend to lean towards the words of the philosopher Chris Rock: "If they wanna fight, let 'em fight, cuz I ain't fightin! Give 'em pink uniforms if they want, I ain't fighin'!"