U.S. Naval Academy head defends noon prayer

[aargh57]

Found this in the Navy Times:
http://www.navytimes.com/print.php?f...PER-942640.php

"When asked about the tradition of having a noon meal prayer at the Naval Academy, Superintendent Vice Adm. Rodney Rempt said the nondenominational prayer will continue.
Retired Gen. Charles Krulak — the Board of Visitors Chairman and former commandant of the Marine Corps — raised the issue during the board’s quarterly meeting at the academy June 27.

Krulak was reacting to recent calls from the Anti-Defamation League that the prayer, conducted on a rotating basis by the academy’s six chaplains, be discontinued. The prayer, given to the Brigade of Midshipmen in King Hall, can be a spoken prayer, a moment of silence or a devotional thought, officials said.

Rempt said Navy legal experts had reviewed the constitutionality of offering the prayer and found that it fit into the academy’s wider mission of developing naval officers; those officers routinely support the religious needs of their own sailors and Marines, he said."

It goes on to say that moments of silence are also acceptable and that, “Every midshipman is required to be respectful and silent during that period,” Rempt said. “They can pray if they wish, or not — whatever they like to do.”

Just wondering how it can be constitutional to have prayer in a Federal Academy and not in public schools? However, I have to admit that I'm a little torn on this one as it may indeed have something to do with morale. Should a military unit be more concerned with cohesiveness? After all, they're in the war business and if having a chaplain lead prayer in a unit somehow makes the sailors/soldiers/marines perform better shouldn't it be up to the Armed forces to decide not outside interests? Like I said, I'm not 100% for this, just debating the issue with myself.

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by aargh57
However, I have to admit that I'm a little torn on this one as it may indeed have something to do with morale. Should a military unit be more concerned with cohesiveness?

This was the argument that was used to put Negros in separate units for much of the 20th century.

Quote:

After all, they're in the war business and if having a chaplain lead prayer in a unit somehow makes the sailors/soldiers/marines perform better shouldn't it be up to the Armed forces to decide not outside interests?

"After all, they're in the war business, and if having all the darkies in the same battalion because they're not fit to serve with 'real' soldiers makes the soldiers perform better, shouldn't it be up to the Armed forces to decide?"

Quote:

From INTEGRATION OF NEGRO AND WHITE TROOPS IN THE U.S. ARMY, EUROPE : 1952-54 (file number 8-3.1 CK 2)
The official policy of the U.S. Army since the Civil War had been to keep the white and Negro races segregated in separate units. Negro soldiers had been assigned to Negro units of regimental size or larger, some of which had Negro officers. Most Negroes had been employed in service support functions because they had generally been regarded as unsuitable for combat.

In one of the first of such evaluations the so-called Gillem Board (headed by Lt. Gen. Alvan Gillem, Jr.), in 1945 had recommended the expansion of opportunities for the Negro in the Army and had supported the assignment of colored and white groups in composite units. The board had favored continuance of the basic segregation principle and the racial quota system limiting the number of Negroes in the Army to 10 percent of the total. It left to the future the possibility of acceptance of integration. Presidential Executive Order 9981, issued in July 1948, had changed the segregation tradition by declaring a policy of equality of opportunity and treatment in the armed services. The order had also created the President 's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces (better known as the Fahy Committee) to study the manpower policies of the services. The committee had approached its task from the position of determining how broader opportunities for Negroes would increase their efficiency and make available a larger manpower reserve to the army. Therefore, in May 1949 the Fahy Committee proposed opening all army jobs and schools to qualified personnel without regard to race or color, assigning all Army personnel according to ability and need, and abolishing the racial quota. In contrast, the Chamberlin Board (created in November 1949 to study the Negro manpower problem and headed by Lt. Gen. S. J. Chamberlin) concluded that increased opportunities for colored soldiers would adversely affect the fighting spirit and morale of the Army in general. This board like the Gillem Board, favored the traditional pattern of segregation and the 10 percent quota system.

And from Black Soldier, White Army:The 24th Infantry in Korea

Quote:

In late September 1950, two months after the beginning of the Korean War, the commander of the 25th Infantry Division, Major General William B. Kean, requested that the Eighth Army disband the all-black 24th Infantry regiment because it had demonstrated that it was "untrustworthy and incapable of carrying out missions expected of an infantry regiment."

Thus began a controversy that has continued to this day. Critics of the regiment have charged that the 24th was a dismal failure in combat. The African-American veterans of the organization and others, meanwhile, have contended that the unit did far better than its critics would concede and that its main problem was racial prejudice.

The situation in the 24th Infantry did not arise in a day. It grew out of a history extending back over a hundred years to the abolition of the system of slavery that had marred the American experience from its beginning. For once the African-American had been freed of his bondage and had gained some rights of citizenship, it made sense that he should serve in the nation's armed forces. Yet vast hostility to blacks remained in the very fabric of the society, so much so that the integration of whites and blacks into the nation's Army seemed out of the question. As a result, although blacks served, they always did so apart, segregated into battalions, regiments, and divisions reserved exclusively for them. They fought dependably and creditably on the Western Frontier, in the Spanish-American War, and during the Philippine Insurrection, but they never seemed able to overcome the attitudes of the white nation that employed them. Instead, the white world pulled back into itself by enacting "separate but equal" laws that had the effect of rendering African-Americans and their contributions invisible. When segregated soldiers rebelled against that system at Houston at the beginning of World War I, the mistrust they engendered among whites helped to erase whatever credit black units had earned in earlier wars and influenced how white commanders viewed them in subsequent conflicts.

In World Wars I and II, the African-American soldier seemed destined for failure from the beginning. Ascribing to assertions that blacks were lazy and of low intellect, the Army's commanders used them mainly to perform menial tasks, such as unloading ships and digging ditches. Even when finally constrained by political pressure to form all-black regiments and divisions and to allow African-Americans to enter combat, they tended to employ them in areas where little would be lost if they failed. When black Americans performed well, as they did when they fought under French command in World War I, white America made little of their successes, but when they failed, as some did, the news was well circulated. Over all, few in positions of authority were willing to admit that the system of racial segregation was at fault or that a lack of mutual confidence and respect between the black soldier and his white commanders had all but destroyed the sense of oneness, mutual dependency, and self-worth in black units that are the chief constituents of good military performance.

I'm not willing to simply take the fox's word about the best way to secure the henhouse, I'm afraid.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by aargh57
Just wondering how it can be constitutional to have prayer in a Federal Academy and not in public schools? However, I have to admit that I'm a little torn on this one as it may indeed have something to do with morale. Should a military unit be more concerned with cohesiveness? After all, they're in the war business and if having a chaplain lead prayer in a unit somehow makes the sailors/soldiers/marines perform better shouldn't it be up to the Armed forces to decide not outside interests? Like I said, I'm not 100% for this, just debating the issue with myself.

If the military can require everyone to be straight, of course they can require everyone to be religious. I'm only surprised they haven't kicked people out for not being the right religion yet. It's about "cohesiveness", which certainly trumps whatever nonsensical American values the American military exists to protect.

[aargh57]

Dr. Kitten,

Point taken, although I'm not sure that segregation and the prayer thing are moral equivalents. I am an officer in the Naval Reserve and an atheist and I don't think I feel anything like a black soldier during that time period.

Tragic Monkey,

You don't have to be straight just don't tell anybody. Big difference.

[triadboy]

As a former submariner - who lived underwater for 3 months at a time - I always thought it was strange that on Sunday mornings (when you could determine what day it was) - the Weapons Officer held a religious service on the mess decks.

Lord, bless this holy hand grenade.

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by aargh57

Point taken, although I'm not sure that segregation and the prayer thing are moral equivalents.

I think the central question is -- what is the actual good done, and similarly, what is the corresponding harm that is done?

I'm unconvinced by the following statement:

Quote:

Navy legal experts had reviewed the constitutionality of offering the prayer and found that it fit into the academy’s wider mission of developing naval officers; those officers routinely support the religious needs of their own sailors and Marines.

It's only to be expected that "Navy legal experts" will come out in support of existing naval tradition. I would like to see some actual numbers -- or, at least, evidence -- supporting the idea that there is actually some benefit obtained from this practice, not just the say-so of a half-dozen anonymous "experts."

If there is support for the idea that a religious Navy is a more effective Navy, then I could probably be persuaded that mandatory prayer at the Academy is a good thing. But there is a huge epistemological difference between "there is support" and "a group of people with an interest say there is support."

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by aargh57
Tragic Monkey,

You don't have to be straight just don't tell anybody. Big difference.

Yes, betray your people and live a lie. Help prop up injustice by serving quietly and obediently under it. Stand by and watch other people get drummed out for it, but be safe yourself by toeing the line and pretending to be what you're not.

I would have joined the military if I wouldn't have had to trample my ethics, integrity, and honesty to do so.

[aargh57]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Yes, betray your people and live a lie. Help prop up injustice by serving quietly and obediently under it. Stand by and watch other people get drummed out for it, but be safe yourself by toeing the line and pretending to be what you're not.

I would have joined the military if I wouldn't have had to trample my ethics, integrity, and honesty to do so.

I was actually trying to poke fun at their absurd policy. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by aargh57
I was actually trying to poke fun at their absurd policy. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

Lol. You hit a nerve. I live in a military town. It's not much fun seeing people lose their careers over something so foolish, or the ones who are still in desperately trying to hide it.

The funny thing is that if the military actually did get rid of all the gays, they'd be surprised at how many there are. The proportion of gay to straight seems much, much higher in the military than in the civilian population.

eta: And one of the saddest things is that the military guys do a lot of hooking up for casual sex and one-night-stands, but don't pursue relationships because they're more likely to be caught. Yeah, just put finding real love on hold until you retire at age 50 something. What a nice life that is.

[Hal Bidlack]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
... I would have joined the military if I wouldn't have had to trample my ethics, integrity, and honesty to do so.

Is it possible, in your view, for a person serving in the military to have ethics, integrity, and honesty?

[crimresearch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack
Is it possible, in your view, for a person serving in the military to have ethics, integrity, and honesty?

Perhaps someone could address the more relevant question of how one is supposed to reconcile their ethics, integrity, and honesty with DADT regulations that require people to either live a lie or get out?

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack
Is it possible, in your view, for a person serving in the military to have ethics, integrity, and honesty?

If you had been reading in context, you might have asked if I thought it were possible for a gay person to serve in the US military with its anti-gay policies. Which, in my opinion, is morally equivalent to a fair-skinned black person working for a racist organization that won't hire black people.

[Vorticity]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
If you had been reading in context, you might have asked if I thought it were possible for a gay person to serve in the US military with its anti-gay policies.

...or a straight person who is at all concerned about gay rights...

[Vorticity]

Quote:

Originally posted by aargh57
Dr. Kitten,

Point taken, although I'm not sure that segregation and the prayer thing are moral equivalents. I am an officer in the Naval Reserve and an atheist and I don't think I feel anything like a black soldier during that time period.

Tragic Monkey,

You don't have to be straight just don't tell anybody. Big difference.

Clearly the time has come for this:

Quote:

Originally posted by The Village People
"In the Navy"

Where can you find pleasure
Search the world for treasure
Learn science technology
Where can you begin to make your dreams all come true
On the land or on the sea
Where can you learn to fly
Play in sports and skin dive
Study oceanography
Sign of for the big band
Or sit in the grandstand
When your team and others meet

In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, fall in 'n' make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)

They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

If you like adventure
Don't you wait to enter
The recruiting office fast
Don't you hesitate
There is no need to wait
They're signing up new seamen fast
Maybe you are too young
To join up today
Bout don't you worry 'bout a thing
For I'm sure there will be
Always a good navy
Protecting the land and sea

In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, fall in 'n' make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)

They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

Who me?

They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

But, but but I'm afraid of water.
Hey, hey look
Man, I get seasick even watchin' it on TV!

They want you, they want you in the navy

Oh my goodness.
What am I gonna do in a submarine?

They want you, they want you in the navy

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack
Is it possible, in your view, for a person serving in the military to have ethics, integrity, and honesty?

I would say "of course it is" (unless they dress up in stockings and wigs).

However

is it possible for a homosexual person serving in the USA military to have ethics? - Yes.

is it possible for a homosexual person serving in the military to have integrity? - No.

is it possible for a homosexual person serving in the military to have honesty? - No.

[RamblingOnwards]

Quote:

Originally posted by aargh57
Just wondering how it can be constitutional to have prayer in a Federal Academy and not in public schools?

I have no idea about the legalities, but I can see one practical difference. Children need their rights protected for them. Adults are presumed to be at least somewhat capable of defending their own rights.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
If the military can require everyone to be straight, of course they can require everyone to be religious. I'm only surprised they haven't kicked people out for not being the right religion yet. ...

Have you seen what goes on at the Air Force Academy? They're well on their way.

cnn: religious bias probe at af academy

[aargh57]

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorticity
...or a straight person who is at all concerned about gay rights...

I debated a while on whether or not I should respond to this because I'll probably get flamed, but, what the heck.

I am a straight person and (as I said) a member of the Navy Reserve. I also consider myself concerned about gay rights. I guess according to your position I lack honesty, integrity, and ethics because I don't resign my comission (I seriously considered this because of this thread although being an Individual Ready Reserve and a junior officer to boot my resignation would have no impact.) However, I don't think that's necessary. I don't think being concerned about something means you must take lifechanging measures to prove it. I can understand how you feel this way but it just irked me a little to see the implication in that remark.

[kuroyume0161]

Quote:

Originally posted by aargh57
I debated a while on whether or not I should respond to this because I'll probably get flamed, but, what the heck.

I am a straight person and (as I said) a member of the Navy Reserve. I also consider myself concerned about gay rights. I guess according to your position I lack honesty, integrity, and ethics because I don't resign my comission (I seriously considered this because of this thread although being an Individual Ready Reserve and a junior officer to boot my resignation would have no impact.) However, I don't think that's necessary. I don't think being concerned about something means you must take lifechanging measures to prove it. I can understand how you feel this way but it just irked me a little to see the implication in that remark.

But there's the problem isn't it? Gays have stood up and said their peace (and received the 'Shhh, don't say that' rule). It basically amounted to nothing. If noone else is going to stand up for the right thing, then the current policies will never change. I'll never join the military - I'd fight for a just cause, but not under unjust circumstances. You go fight your war under your rules and traditions, I'll head the resistance if the enemy ever invades the country.

The USA: preach one thing (the Constitution) and enact another (racism and homophobia). During WWII, not only were African Americans placed into separate units, but Japanese Americans who wished to defend their country were at first denied and then placed into separate units deployed only to the European theater for 'obvious' reasons. But if you're name was Tartaglioni or Schmittenheimer, hey, no problem (unless you maybe just emigrated from Italy or Germany a few years before the US entered the war, maybe).

I'm sorry. Don't expect sympathy from us when you (gen.) go about boasting that you've performed your duty as an American citizen protecting and serving. You garner the respect that you furnish others.

[Chris O.]

I had a hard time deciding whether to enter this conversation, because I don't think anyone's minds on either side could be changed anyway, and it's significantly derailed from the OP. But, I get the feeling people are branding about the phrase "Don't ask, Dont Tell" without actually understanding the policy that it refers to. That's not the entire policy, that's just a simple way of referring to Homosexual policy.

The major part of the policy is "Don't Ask"

A recruiter may not ask your sexual orientation upon enlisting,
A training instructor may not ask you in basic training

A supervisor may not ask you in your job,
A lawyer may not ask you in court
A General may not ask you, anywhere.
No one may ask you, for any reason, nor accuse you of being a homosexual, unless you've 'outed-yourself' ("Don't Tell", below) Any assumption of your sexual orientation, is just that, an assumption.

No one may discrimate against anyone based on their assumed sexual orientation. Two people work along side each other, and I keep my sexual activities to myself, and so do you.

Reporting someone to the Military Equal Oportunity (MEO) Office for discrimination against you for your 'assumed' sexual orientation is not the same as admitting to being homosexual, you're reporting someone for breaking a law, and that information may not be used against you at a later time.

Don't Tell:

Do Not go up to someone who cares (and that number is dropping every year) and tell them you're a homosexual. But, because you knew this rule from day one (it was never a surprise to anyone who joined) and you know, that if you go to a certain person, and say that, you might as well follow it with, "and I'd like to get out of the military." Because you have the information, and you're making a concious decision. You know what the process is going to be. It's similar to a medical discharge, incidentally.

The only other way of being outed, (of the closet) is to engage in homosexual behavior, (sex-related, not manurisms) in a place so as to be caught ie. in Public. Since everyone after a few years lives in seperate apartments, or their own homes, pretty much anything you do in your own home is your own business. I could be in here sacrificing goats, and as long as I cleaned up the mess, no one would ever know.

Now, you may fit all the stereotypes of a homosexual, and so long as you don't actually say the words or can't keep your hands to yourself in public (which is frowned upon for straights, too), no one may jump to the conclusion that you are a homosexual. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it still isn't a duck...unless it walks up to me and tells me it's a duck.

The unfortunate part is, if you do 'out' yourself, you have to go. Sorry, that's the policy, you knew it when you signed up.

Thats the basics of the policy.

You gotta go, because there is a lot of bigotry and hatred in the United States, and the armed forces are nothing but a sampling of it's population. And there is still a lot of fear of homosexuals, as well as a large population who still believe it's a sinful choice. And some of those people are in the military, and the military breeds violence into a lot of its members. So an argument can turn ugly, fear can turn into violence, and the leadership cannot watch everyone all the time. So, in a barracks full of men, in the night, bad things can happen. It's just safer if you keep it yourself, because if you 'come-out' they can't protect you.

The Blacks and Asians were segregated because the white men were fighting them, and didn't trust them, not because the leadership saw them as inferior. As the feelings of hatred and distrust wanned, and the likelyhood of an incident decreased, they were integrated into the general population

The other groups were integrated into the rest of the forces when the general population of America and thus the troops were ready to handle it, and act like grown-ups. The general populace still isn't to that point with homosexuals. I wish it weren't true, but those are the facts.

The policy is an attempt to deal with a problem that already exists in the world, an attempt to protect a minority of people against a violent (shrinking) group of people. The military's DADT policy is not the problem. Homophobia and ignorance are the problems, the military cannot beat homophobia out of somone, (or racism for that matter) by the time you're old enough to join the military, you are you are going to be. What they can do is punish severely people who attempt to discriminate against minorities, and attempt to protect them.

Now, we may ask, every year if the DADT policy is still necessary, and I would probably be on the side that it's time for it to go, But I don't know all the details of every group of people in the military. There are still hate crimes being commited.

But, I am strongly against the idea that it is an evil policy that breads hatred and ignorance, or that homesexuals are violating their integrity by being a part of the organization. They're not living a lie, they're just not telling the people who would try and see them removed.

I could see how some people would say they may feel they're being forced to keep a dark secret, but from what I've seen, it's not all that bad. As more and more people are enlightenend, they have more and more confidants who they can be open with.

Anecdotal evidence, take it or leave it:

There is a guy who works on my last base who fits all the stereotypes of an efeminate homosexual. The guy is a delicate flower, he's gracefull, tall and thin, giggles sweetly, and almost constantly. He drives a cute little aqua colored car, and hangs out with all these gorgeous women. I'm not saying I follow the stereotype, but I know the characteristics in the stereotype, and he has them, that's all I'm saying. Now, he's been in for 1 term, re-enlisted and is about to have people working for him. Now, I don't know if he is a homosexual, but if I were a betting man, I'd say he was. But you know what, I can't ask him, I can't assume he is, then begin making decisions based on that assumption. It's no one's business. If someone does begin to discriminate against him, he can take him to the MEO office, with no fear of retribution against him. Just like anyone may do for sexual harrassment, or racial discrimination. But with all the apareant evidence pointing to his being a homosexual, he is enjoying the military life. The people he works with get along with him, other military customers respect him, and he lives his life. And he has a policy that prevents anyone from attempting to make his life difficult, for no good reason.

"Don't ask, Don't tell" is an oversimplification that is seen to be the policy in it's entirety. It's not, it's a big policy, and we're required to re-read, and take a test over every year. Everyone knows how they are expected to act, and we understand the consequences of those actions. Gays, and straights alike. There's no surprises, no hidden agenda.

[RamblingOnwards]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris O.
[b] an attempt to protect a minority of people against a violent (shrinking) group of people.

How rapid/ absolute is the process for discharging people who admit to bigotry out loud?

[Chris O.]

Openly admitting bigotry? None. Acting on it, your going to be punished. There's nothing against holding an opinion, attitude, or personal beliefs. Acting against military law, however, is punishable. Having a bigotted opinion isn't against the law, using your bigotry to make other's lives difficult, is.

ETA: After some thought I think i should add some information to that statement:

If the bigot is in an office vocalising his opinion, and being rude, and offensive, and demeaning, anyone can ask him to stop. And they ask with the full authority of the Secritary of Defense.
If a General is in my office, carrying on about how homosexuals should be round up and executed, and I ask him to stop, he has to stop, or i can take him to MEO, and they have the authority to ensure he stops. Up to a point, it's really really hard to get a General out, but they can make his life difficult.

[kuroyume0161]

Efforts grow to end ban on openly gay soldiers

SLDN

DADT Discharge Chart (PDF download at link)

According to the chart, discharges went up dramatically when "God-speaks-through-me' Bush became president. Yes, the numbers have dropped since, but so have enlistments in general and sanity (who wants to lose life and limb fighting in a stupid war against non-military insurgents/terrorists - Iraq is the biggest blunder in the history of the US, militarily, and even I realized it way before Bush started pushing for it).


CSSMM

[RamblingOnwards]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris O.
Openly admitting bigotry? None. Acting on it, your going to be punished. There's nothing against holding an opinion, attitude, or personal beliefs.

Then I don't get it. Banning people who openly admit to being gay is okay because it might prevent them from being a victim, but banning the people who admit to being bigots isn't okay even though it might prevent them from being attackers?

I'm really not following how DADT is moral. Perhaps you could explain it by showing how your argument differs from the argument that women should be clothed from head to toe and gaurded 24/7 to protect society from men being rapists?

[Chris O.]

I joined after Bush became president, and I'm not Insane.
I hate when people make sweeping generalizations

I think that last story you posted says a lot for the current Homosexual Policy. That's a case where from the top down, the leadership on the base wasn't following the guidlines, and it allowed an environment of hatred and bigotry to persist. Had someone enforced the laws, that Sgt. wouldn't have been allowed to continue to behave in the way he did, and the soldiers' talk wouldn't have been allowed where it wasn't appreciated. All part of the kinder, gentler military. It's clear that the leadership had no intention of following, or enforcing the policy. The policy wasn't the cause of that situation, the problem was that they ignored the policy, and harbored that kind of hate.

[Chris O.]

Quote:

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
Then I don't get it. Banning people who openly admit to being gay is okay because it might prevent them from being a victim, but banning the people who admit to being bigots isn't okay even though it might prevent them from being attackers?

I hate to say it, but all I can come with for this point is that you gotta have SOMEONE in the military. Bigots can be controlled with rules and punishment. At the very least they will be forced to stifle their comments and go into hiding, much like a homosexual would have to. You can be a bigot, or homosexual, you just need to keep it to yourself. Now, a policy that automatically removes someone at the first sign of being a bigot...Well, we believe you can change that about yourself, that's why they get sent to all kinds of awareness training, if they become a repeat offender. I know that's not very good, but that's all I got.

Quote:

I'm really not following how DADT is moral. Perhaps you could explain it by showing how your argument differs from the argument that women should be clothed from head to toe and gaurded 24/7 o prtotect society from men being rapists?

You're putting someone who is percieved by some as a threat (Yes, these people are afraid of homosexuals) in a barracks with a group of easily influenced people with flock tendencies. This isn't a person walking down a populated street, this is a person sleeping in a dark room with people who percieve him to be an enemy. He's outnumbered, and hated, and there's no one to protect him. A woman walking down a public road isn't the same situation. She has other women around, police, and strangers who aren't part of the same mindset. It's never been demonstrated that the clothes a woman wears causes men to become rapists, there are, however many occurances of homosexuals being beaten and killed because of what they are. In one instance you have several occasions of an act being carried out, and it's cause defined directly before the crime. They killed him because he was a homosexual. Rapists usually commit rape to feel in control, as an act of power and desparation. Rape will and does happen regardless of what the woman is wearing. It makes little difference. On the other hand, no one is getting beat to death for being straight, or for no reason whatsoever. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the beatings of homosexuals are for no other reason than the victim's percieved sexuality. It's just been safer if no one knows they are who they are.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best they could come up with. Openly admitting it, as that last article showed sometimes isn't an option, even if he could have stayed in the military, he still would have been in trouble.

[c4ts]

Ah those crazy midies, they keep wandering over to St. Johns to bore us.

[Chris O.]

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
Ah those crazy midies, they keep wandering over to St. Johns to bore us.

who, what?

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris O.
who, what?

"Midies" are midshipmen, and the Naval Academy is practically across the street from St. John's College. Ocasionally they will announce religious events and bore us with random prayer.

[Chris O.]

I see.

[Ryokan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris O.
The only other way of being outed, (of the closet) is to engage in homosexual behavior, (sex-related, not manurisms) in a place so as to be caught ie. in Public. Since everyone after a few years lives in seperate apartments, or their own homes, pretty much anything you do in your own home is your own business. I could be in here sacrificing goats, and as long as I cleaned up the mess, no one would ever know.

Now, you may fit all the stereotypes of a homosexual, and so long as you don't actually say the words or can't keep your hands to yourself in public (which is frowned upon for straights, too), no one may jump to the conclusion that you are a homosexual. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it still isn't a duck...unless it walks up to me and tells me it's a duck.

The unfortunate part is, if you do 'out' yourself, you have to go. Sorry, that's the policy, you knew it when you signed up.

I assume soldiers are allowed to live with their wife on base? What if you have a boyfriend? Or is a steady, loving relationship banned as long as you're a homosexual soldier?

[Chris O.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ryokan
I assume soldiers are allowed to live with their wife on base? What if you have a boyfriend? Or is a steady, loving relationship banned as long as you're a homosexual soldier?

They are, and it is. Because you're not allowed to be openly homosexual in the military.

[Ryokan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris O.
They are, and it is. Because you're not allowed to be openly homosexual in the military.

I have many years of military service behind me. I'm not gay. But if I had been Amerian, I would never have served in the US Military.

I served together with gay people, domestic and abroad, and I can honestly say it was never any problems.

If the excuse is that they might be harassed because of their sexual orientation, I believe the US Military is banning and punishing the wrong people.

[Chris O.]

It's something you have to weigh when making that decision. But, just like racial segregation, I've no doubt that there will be a time when it goes away.
It's not fair now, but I don't see it as an evil or immoral thing. But I beleive it should be up to homosexuals to determine if they feel safe enough to be open.

[Ryokan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris O.
It's something you have to weigh when making that decision. But, just like racial segregation, I've no doubt that there will be a time when it goes away.
It's not fair now, but I don't see it as an evil or immoral thing. But I beleive it should be up to homosexuals to determine if they feel safe enough to be open.

Using the same logic, if the general population were to suddenly become more bigoted towards blacks, would blacks be banned from serving the military?

[Chris O.]

That's not likely to happen, but since the military is a sampling of the nation's population, and beliefs, and not tasked with setting the moral standards of the nation, I would say, yes, they probably would.

Just like universities would begin to discriminate again, and if the slide back towards racism went far enough, primary schools, bathrooms, and drinking fountains, would all become segregrated. Which would happen first, and what order they would happen, I can't say, but yes, if it backslid far enough then it would be expected that the military would reflect the attitudes of the nation, and it's members would as well. A nation's military is part of the nation.

[Ryokan]

So the US Military is regulated by whatever bigotry is popular at the time? This doesn't seem wrong to you?

[Chris O.]

Of course it's regulated by whatever bigotry is popular in the nation. Just like the senate is, just like the Presidency, and any organization ruled, and populated by the people. The bigotry is what's wrong. But making due with the people you're given, and dealing with reality, instead of idealism, you can't fault them for that. At the same time, the leadership does provide sensitivity training, and encourage fair treatment of everyone.
But, the primary job of the military is the defense of the nation, and to do that, they need people from the nation. The majority attitude of the nation will be the major attitude of the military. Fair? No, practical? yes. And that's all that matters in a war-fighting organisation. It's not a hugs and kisses business. If someone's feelings are being hurt, that's tough. But they thought it was necessary, just as they thought the segregation was necessary at the time, and they corrected it when it was seen not to be necessary. Fair or not, necessity out-weighs personal feelings.

[RamblingOnwards]

So we can expect the American military to shortly require the automatic discharge of anyone openly admitting to being Muslim?

You have failed to convince me this policy is either reasonable or in any way for the purpose of protecting gay people.

Firstly, there are for more logical ways to go about it if that's the only intention - closer supervision of barracks (panic buttons, for instance, would completely prevent this problem without even affecting anyone's privacy), better pyschological screening of intakes, harsher punishments for bigotry, at the very least discontinuing the policy for the people who no longer *live* in barracks ["Since everyone after a few years lives in seperate apartments, or their own homes"].

Secondly, I do think a government has the moral duty to a) follow the laws they require of everyone who isn't them, and b) lead the way on social issues, and not explicitly condone bigotry.

[Chris O.]

Quote:

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
So we can expect the American military to shortly require the automatic discharge of anyone openly admitting to being Muslim?

Well, fortunately, Muslims haven't been subject to the same sort of violence either in society or in Barracks. While there have been some incidents, it's not been as wide-spread as anti-gay violence. So, I don't see these situations as similar. Even after Sept. 11, the percentage of the population that was hostile towards Muslims, wasn't as high as the percentage that is hostile towards homosexuals. Nor were the feelings as deeply ingrained as homophobia is.

Quote:

You have failed to convince me this policy is either reasonable or in any way for the purpose of protecting gay people.

So do you deny that homosexuals who are open in the military have been met with violence? Or that homosexuals who hide their sexuality through their career have gone through hostile situations unharmed, other than the trauma of having to hide their lifestyles?

Quote:

Firstly, there are for more logical ways to go about it if that's the only intention - closer supervision of barracks (panic buttons, for instance, would completely prevent this problem without even affecting anyone's privacy), better pyschological screening of intakes, harsher punishments for bigotry, at the very least discontinuing the policy for the people who no longer *live* in barracks ["Since everyone after a few years lives in seperate apartments, or their own homes"].

There are panic buttons in the baracks, or failing panic buttons, there have always been ways of notifying authorities of a situation. Be it someone trying to kill themselves, fire, someone choking... But those require active activation by somone in the barracks. If a group of men have decided to torment one of their own, who's going to push the button, without becoming the mob's target the next night?
And, I agree with you on discontinuing the policy after moving to a seperate apartment or home. I don't see why not. And as those links above show, there is a movement by people of influence to change the policy, so perhaps some day soon it will be. Harsher punishments for bigotry, I agree. Better screening of applicants? Not for the types of jobs the people committing the violence are going into. They need bodies. Now if these bodies stay in long enough to become leadership, they do get screened for certain disorders, and ability to lead, but it's not hard to hide bigotry long enough to make it through an interview. Especially if you believe your worldview is not only right, but essential.

Quote:

Secondly, I do think a government has the moral duty to a) follow the laws they require of everyone who isn't them, and b) lead the way on social issues, and not explicitly condone bigotry.

Well, a) the military has and always will be required to follow the laws of society, plus some stricter ones. (For example, it's illegal for me to be late for work, or to commit adultry) They are also required to protect their investments. And if one of their investments is inclined to put himself in harms way, it is their duty to order him to be careful. and b) While some individuals display bigotry, the policies of the military in no way shape or form 'explicitly condone' it.

Explicitly condone, meaning to actually, in no uncertain terms, encourage, or allow.

Bigotry, officially, is not tollerated at all, and repeat offenders will be run out, if they don't shut up when ordered to. And in most parts of the military it will not be tolerated and offenders will be reported. So no, bigotry is not 'explicitly condoned' there are places where there is a strong undercurrent of bigotry but it's being weeded out.

However, these cases of violence are usually in groups of men who have very aggressive training, usually do one enlistment, then leave the military. Specifically groups like the Marines, or certain Army sections. They have these men for a short amount of time, 3-4 years, then they move on, all the while a new crop is coming in from society. To undo the mental damage and ingrained predjudices some of these men come in with, would be prohibitive, and quite possibly impossible in the amount of time they're in the military. Most definitely impossible in the short amount of time in training, when these incidents are most likely to happen. You can, however affect the leadership, and they're working on that.

So yes, the military is attempting to lead the way in social issues as far as the leadership is concerned, but there's only so much you can do with a fresh crop of troops that's just going to leave after a few years anyway.

But if you allow an unsuspecting individual to walk into a hostile situation where his identity is going to get him lynched, you're being negligent, and it is for the sake of his protection that he keep it to himself until he is in a situation where he can trust the people around him.