The Glade 4.0

I don't see why you're even bringing this up because regulations to this effect have existed for a very long time. It's not an issue.



I don't think that's the only thing gays are looking for. It may be the only thing gays in the military are looking for, but the larger gay community that has no intention of serving has quite a few people chortling with glee at the idea of making the soldier-boy stereotypes they imagine the military is made up of squirm with discomfort.

In any case, the real issue is not and has never been about anyone's rights. Gays should be allowed to serve openly because it serves no useful purpose any longer to forbid it, and has numerous negative effects on the military. The purpose of a military is to defeat enemies, and decisions should be made on that basis.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the latter part of that statement expressed in his post.

He seems to be saying that it's fine for gays to be able to say they are gay without being removed from the military, and it's fine for chaplains to say it's a sin.

That doesn't stop gays from having to adhere to other standards expected of them in the military, nor does it stop the chaplains from being required to minister to the gay soldiers as to any other soldier.

The idea is to be able to speak your thoughts without letting them effect the way you perform your job. Once your beliefs/ideas begin to adversely effect your job performance, there is a problem. Prior to that, however... No problem should exist on either side.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I thought military personnel essetially surrendered their civil rights upon entering service

I should point out that there's a big difference between a chaplain expressing his moral views (or a commander) and anyone else doing it in the military.

Still, this highlights an almost inevitable problem in current Equal Opportunity policy. It will doubtless become an EO violation to express negative views on homosexuals and homosexuality (and according to some people it already was anyhow since it could be offensive to a soldeir with gay relatives).

However, if gays or people sympathetic to them are allowed to openly express positive sentiments about homosexuality tht ould be equally offensive to soldeirs who disagree.

This issue is one I just see coming over the horizon and I ahve no idea how it will be resolved. I can only hope its less ham-handed than other EO/Sexual Harrassment affairs, but...

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, absolutely not. They only surrender them insofar as military necessity dictates. That can be quite far but it is also far from an unlimited license for the military to do as it pleases.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I seriously doubt a chaplain would be forced to marry same sex couples any time soon, since they generally aren't required to perform services that fall outside their faith's practices (e.g. a Jewish Rabbi isn't required, or probably even allowed, to perform Christian baptisms). However, I do think it's almost a certainty that chaplains will be forbidden from making public pronouncements about the sinfulness of homosexuality. There are two basic reasons for this:

First, it's an Establishment Clause issue. Chaplains are officers of the government, and soldiers' presence in a given place/command is compelled by the government, so any kind of proselytizing on behalf of one faith tradition or criticism of another faith tradition is likely to run afoul of the Establishment Clause. The second and probably more relevant reason is that this is where the military effectiveness and unit cohesion arguments about gays in the military get turned around. Chaplains, like any other member of the military, can be prohibited from saying/doing things that undermine the effectiveness of the military. Chaplains can't give sermons about the sinfulness of other faith traditions or denouncing the "mingling of the races" because doing so would seriously undermine the morale and cohesion of the military, which includes soldiers of multiple faiths and multiple races. Likewise, once the military openly includes gay soldiers, sermons about the sinfulness of homosexuality will almost certainly become equally off-limits. Personally, I'm ok with that, for the same reasons I'm ok with prohibiting sermons against other religions or races. But I do agree that it's a probable result of gays being allowed to serve, and it does constitute a genuine limitation on the free exercise of some Chaplains' religion.

As long as existing Chaplains are given the option to resign and be honorably discharged if they don't agree with the new rules, I don't believe that there is any limitation being put on their free exercise of their religion.

Chaplains cannot be forced to marry anyone. Mariage has nothing to do with military functions; soldiers do not need to have marriages performed while deployed and when not deployed they can seek out normal civil authorities. The military may permit a chaplain to perform marriages in a military chapel but it does not obligate them to.

As for a chaplain being forbidden to say homosexuality is sinful, they could probably still do that during private counselling. In public there are plenty of other matters they could preach on; avoiding discussion of homosexuality is not much of a restriction on their ability to function as clergy.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Az,

Again what if we change Christian with homosexual and religious freedom with free speech? Does this change your mind?

maybe my paranoia is unfounded, Time will tell.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Nope, doesn't change my mind. If you were to really do that, then you'd need to understand that if you were to openly admit to being a Christian in the military today, that you'd be booted out with most likely a dishonorable discharge.

You're trying to create a false equivelance here. Gays are trying to be able to not hide the fact that they are gay. They aren't trying to get the right to say that everyone who isn't Gay is going to hell and a sinner.

There aren't any new rules. Like I already said, many people already consider negative discussion of sexual orientation a violation of current policy. I would have to review the policy to see if it explicitly says this, but that's largely the way its been handled although I don't know of anyone who has actually filed a complaint that they were offended but derogatory discussion of homosexuality.

RD is right, it IS a restriction of the Chaplain's freedom, but it is a minor one that serves military necessity. The real issue is that gays also should not be allowed to discuss the moral acceptability of homosexuality or the bigotry of those who disagree whiel hiding behinf policy to silence other views.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're making an assumption that is not valid. Many gays like to proclaimn that anyone who thinks homosexuality is sinful is an intolerant, hateful bigot just waiting for an excuse to form a lynch mob, and are quite likely to say precisely that, or words to that effect if they are allowed to serve openly.

You are putting forth an idealized view of gays and gay soldiers that may be true in some, even many cases, but is not in others. Gays ar just as likely to be intolerant as anyone else.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How is it not a limitation? "Comply or be penalized" is pretty much how government restrictions work. In this case, it's taking the form of "comply by not expressing your religious beliefs, or be penalized by getting discharged from the military." I happen to think it's a reasonable limitation, given the context, but it's still a limitation.

My assumptions are no more or less valid than yours. Certainly there are assholes out there who are Gay, they are people just like everyone else. But I think it is silly to assume that because there are a few idiots that everyone is just like that.

My wording was somewhat subtle, so let me explain.

Is the Chaplain limiting themselves by accepting the job and the rules that go with it? Certainly. But no more so than I do myself by being a liberal in a concervative company and biting my tongue because it would be a career limiting move to say something at some of the nonsense I occasionally hear. Do that mean my rights are being violated? Absolutely not. I completely have the right to say what I want, but have to understand the ramifications of those actions.

Similarly, as long as no one is preventing those Chaplains that want to continue to preach that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination from leaving service, then no one is preventing them from exercising their right of religious freedom. They just need to accept that they can't do it in the military and go do something else where they can be a bigot all day long if they like.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Would it be a limitation of free exercise if the rule was that Chaplains can't express Islamic beliefs while serving in the military? I'm guessing you'd agree that it would be a limitation, so I don't understand why you think a ban on expressing a particular religious belief, as opposed to a group of religious beliefs, is so categorically different that it doesn't even constitute a limitation on expression. It's a lesser degree of limitation, sure, but still a limitation.

Vindi,

The difference is that today the Chaplin can't get booted out of the military for saying "I'm a Christian".

However, the gay man/woman can for saying or even being found out that they are gay.

Well on principle it wouldn't be any different than the limitations already discussed about not talking about certain things in a negative light, etc. by other Chaplains. Your wording is very vague, so if you're saying "can't talk about Islam period", then while the principle is the same, I would disagree with the level of restriction. It should be noted that my response would be the same if you were to say that Chaplains can't express Christian beliefs.

This is rare, but I do believe I find Diamondeye is making the most reasonable arguments in this thread.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I didn't say everyone is just like that. I said gays are just as likely to be intolerant as anyone else, and that's not exactly an "assumption" and a lot more valid than yours. It's not a false equivalence at all to say that if gays are allowed to serve openly, some of them will choose to express their own form of bigotry.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

What's this got to do with anything? Under the court decision this would no longer be true.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So you don't think that gay soldiers actually want to serve their country and be able to be themselves?

You seem to think that I'm making some huge assumption that the primary motivator for gays to serve openly in the military is being able to serve their country honorably yet not try and hide who they are. But that what's really the case is they want to finally get into a shouting match with the fundi Christians of the military without getting discharged. While I have no doubt that will happen, it does NOT reflect the majority of the gay soldier community. That is all I'm saying.

edited for clarity

You need to read the context of the responses DE. In both this one and the other one you "don't get", you aren't apparently seeing that I'm responding to the previous posters poor examples/arguments.

You are right, given the court decision this wouldn't be true, but that isn't the scenario that Vindi set up.

What? Where are you getting this bullshit from? I'm saying that you cannot make blanket statements about gay soldiers. Favorable generalizations are just as inaccurate as unfavorable.



No, I'm not saying you're making that assumption. I'm saying that you're assuming they DON'T want to do that, and that assumption may or may not be accurate depending on which individual it is.

Moreover, you don't actually know that it's the majority of the gay soldier community that juyst want to serve their country honorably. That may very well be, but even many of them may also harbor resentments or bigotry of their own. Wanting to serve honorably is not mutually exclusive with having a bone to pick.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."