Chaplain: DADT Repeal will “Shred…Moral Fabric”
A recently retired Army Reserve Chaplain minced few words in criticizing the proposed repeal of the policy known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Chaplain (Col) Alexander Webster (USA, Ret) said, among other things:
President Barack Obama’s initiative to rescind the “don’t ask, don’t tell” statute of 1993 will, if Congress yields to him later this year, shred the social and moral fabric of our armed forces…Fortunately for the nation and its military defense, many chaplains and their civilian faith group leaders are beginning, at last, to push back on the issue.
Webster cites the ADF letter from the Chaplains and the resolutions from Chaplain endorsers opposing repeal.
Retaining DADT is ignorant, short-sighted, and illogical. If 9/11 taught us nothing else, it should have taught us that. People with skills we needed were dismissed simply because they were gay. I have a dream that we will one day live in a nation where we will not be judged by who or how we love, but by the content of our character.
Dawn,
You argue as if judging a person’s sexual actions is not a character judgment. I’m not saying that sexual orientation is the sole or even prime contributor to character, but it certainly is a part.
Dawn_KJ…It is a foregone conclusion that most of the LBGT community are of good character, so I’m fairly sure Dealer meant that by saying …”certainly is a part”.
Some will argue that character has something to do with religion (moral character), but we all know that is not the case. Moral character is developed throughout ones life and certinly changes dependng on our life’s situations.
The bottomeline with DADT is that it prevents our Military personnel from being honest…which is something we highly value; and honesty is certainly a good character trait. I sometimes wonder if the policy exsists to prevent harm, but if that’s the case, I guess we can (and do) lie about other issues that could be harmful as well.
watchtower,
just to be clear, are you saying that an individual’s character changes based on the individual’s situation or are you saying that the standard for character changes on the situation?
additionally, everyone has some action in their life that is less than moral. No one is perfect, therefore it is difficult to define the line between ‘okay’ character and ‘good’ character. While I judge homosexual actions, I also understand that I also have done things which are less than moral.
Dealer —
I’d say that a combination of both would be my answer. I believe character is developed throughout our lifetime. I also believe that our situations and standards change our character based on the many factors of life, e.g. time, money, job, family, death etc., and I’ll also include changes in world as well.
Virtues like integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty seem to be what are normally considered the standard that defines a person of good character, but I’m sure others will add more to the definition of good character depending on their own personal beliefs. I cannot say that if a person’s sexual orientation is different from mine that they are not of good character, nor can I say that it is less than moral.
We simply cannot judge a person by who they fall in love with or want to spend the rest of their lives with. It is a personal choice by a free person to make, and who am I to say otherwise…despite my personal beliefs!
As a side note: Col Webster (USA, Ret) said in his article that we will Shred our moral fabric if DADT is repealed…so I guess the 20+ other countries that don’t have or repealed a DADT policy have no moral fabric either. So much for enlightened people.
watchtower,
I must say that I agree with some, but disagree with most of your beliefs. I agree that character is developed over a lifetime and that our situations and the standards to which we are held affect our character development.
I disagree that we are unable to judge people by who they want to spend the rest of their life with. Your personal beliefs say that some qualities are acceptable to judge and some are not. Equally, the choice to exercise any of the mentioned qualities is a personal choice, why is sexual orientation different?
Lastly, I choose to have a standard in a particular area of life. That is my personal choice, yet you choose to say otherwise. I feel that it is your right to choose otherwise and tell me about it, but I’m amused by which personal choices you let slide and which you object to.
side note: I don’t know enough people in those other country’s militaries to make a moral judgment.
Dealer —
I’m not sure I stated any personal beliefs, except that I cannot (nor should we) judge a person’s character by their sexual orientation. I know a lot of people who’s sexual orientation is different than mine and would trust all of them above reproach. They don’t lie (except the DADT hero’s), cheat or steel. They have excellent work habits, give to charity, go to church, pay their taxes, respectful of the law and just down-right good people (ok, my opinion of course).
I also did not say that some qualities are acceptable to judge or not, but I did give a list of what are usually considered as “good” character traits; and yes, I think they are good.
Not sure how I amused you about what I choose to let slide or object to when it comes to personal choices – I didn’t think I give any indication of what I’d let slide or object to. But I will share this…I object to the DADT policy because it forces a lie, it serves no logical purpose, and it has been scientifically proven that unit cohesion is not compromised by the presence of openly gay personnel.
Moral character is determined by how you affect other people. If you are a consenting adult having sexual activity with another consenting adult, the gender of that other person is utterly irrelevant to the morality of either person’s character, just as the race of either person is irrelevant.
watchtower,
I inferred logically your personal beliefs based on your statements. You stated character traits that you consider good (of which I happen to agree). From that statement I inferred that you judge people’s character on those traits. Immediately after that you state that you cannot judge a person by whom they fall in love with. Therefore, I inferred that wisely choosing your mate is a not a quality you want to judge. Based on those two logical conclusions, you have qualities that are acceptable to judge and some which are not.
Most people have qualities they judge and some they do not. Fashion and style tend to be in the ‘don’t judge’ list, at least until the fashion belies a character trait (such as fashion that implies or suggests promiscuity).
While I do judge people, I am aware that I should judge in the same way that I would want to be judged, which is with mercy and grace. I’m not saying I’m perfect because I have made wrong judgments both personally and professionally.
Specifically for DADT, it serves a logical purpose: as a compromise between not allowing homosexual attitudes and actions in the military at all and allowing open homosexual attitudes and actions. It still serves that purpose.
I’m curious about the scientific studies that prove unit cohesion is not compromised. Specifically in the details, such as what the conditions of the test: before, during, after combat action; branch of service; ability for other members to criticize that lifestyle; treatment of those who object; culture of the test group. Can you show me where to get the test results to evaluate those criteria?
In fairness, I will give my full opinion on the matter. The current bill to repeal DADT leaves a big question open for debate that needs to be clearly answered: what rights would someone who objects to the homosexual lifestyle have to express that sentiment? The current bill implies that homosexuality will be treated the same as other MEO subjects (race, gender, age, religion, and creed). If so, adding sexual orientation to that list forces a different dishonesty: I cannot judge people based on their actions. My opinion on whether the military will survive or die hinges on that question.
Don,
What do you do in the situation where telling the truth will adversely affect someone? Are morals flexible or solid? Are morals generated internal to the individual or are they given from an external source? If external, what source? I know where my moral standard comes from.
Dealer —
I concede to your inferring by my statements, but they are just statements.
I discovered the actual study is no longer retrievable from a link on this (story) webpage: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01pentagon.html?_r=1), maybe it can be located by other means. I also noted that Elaine Donnelly said in this article that we don’t allow military men and women to cohabitate for “obvious reasons” as a reason not to repeal DADT. Military men and women cohabitate all the time AND for obvious reasons. I frankly don’t see a relation between that and DADT, but maybe my liberal tendencies get the best of me sometimes…oh sorry, I digressed.
I really no reason homosexuality should not be treated the same way as other MEO subjects, but we all know that race, gender, age, religion, and creed are still widely discriminated against to this day. I’m not sure why anyone would feel the need to criticize the homosexual lifestyle either. What benefit will anyone get from that? Will it make the criticizer(s) feelings better by telling someone else that what they do is bad, immoral, not cool, or icky? Well, if the person(s) they are objecting to are bothering them they should do the adult thing and ask them to stop (you know, just say NO…women do this to men all them time don’t ya know). There will be some growing pains and maybe some jail time for a few, but it will work itself out eventually.
Those who object (so much they might turn to stone by being in the same room with a gay person) will more than likely be free to resign or get out when their term is up; that seems fair to me anyway. I doubt there will be much of mass exit, but if there is, maybe it is the only way to make us better…with grace and mercy of course.
watchtower,
If your statements don’t line up with your beliefs, then you are not truthful, or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what are your actual beliefs?
military men and women cohabitate (by which I mean sleep in the same room) typically under peacetime conditions and as part of non-military procured housing (i.e. live off base). In combat areas, it is against general order 1 to have people of opposite gender in your room, much less sleep there (granted there are exceptions, for married couples).
People feel the need to express many opinions, typically when one person does not understand why another person does the things that person does. Conversations start like “Why don’t you want to hit the strip club” or “How can you be optimistic about that.” Honest answers make statements that criticize the opposite behavior. Homosexuality is not an exception. Suppose someone makes the statement that they voted for “Defense of Marriage” act and states their belief that it is good for the country to promote core families as defined by married parents and their offspring. Should that person be subject to the growing pains of jail time?
From my experience, I haven’t seen wide discrimination (categorically different than harassment). Fighter pilots are known for not being politically correct, but they are also known for judging a person’s ability as a pilot above all else. Likewise in my current squadron, job performance comes first.
Your last statement leads me to believe that you are ok with qualified people leaving the force over this potential change, and the ones that are left are somehow better people because they can accept not having a standard of behavior in this area. Note I said behavior, i.e. actions. Again, back to my original question, why should I not be allowed to judge someone based on their actions?
Dealer —
Let’s not make this about me…
Look, we live in a free country, but everyday our freedom is being taken away by voting or promoting some “Act” so they can force everyone to do what [they] want us to do (think, feel, say, believe) instead of what the individual wants (in this case the freedom to choose their mate of course).
Also, why do we need a “Defense of Marriage Act” when the people that want to get married and have kids are already free to do so…so why can’t men and women who want to be with each other and not have kids be free to do the same? Core families, as defined by married parents…hello, 13.7 million SINGLE parent families (21.8 million children) in the US as of Nov 2009 Census Bureau. And BTW…approx 556,000 children in foster care. Jail-time, come on Dealer…what for…an opinion?
I’ve known a lot of gay people in and around the Military for 35+ years; and in wartime as well, and everyone of them did their job and no one had ANY problems with their lifestyle except one person. He was out-ed by, believe it or not, his best friend because of his friends morals, that apparently outweighed his friendship of 25 years or so.
No, I’m not necessarily ok with qualified people leaving the force…but that happens all the time and not just because of gay people. DADT policy has been able to get thousands of highly qualified people booted from or not allowed to enter service, even the desperately needed foreign language experts. Sexual preferences do not make qualified people…Just recently the AF change PT standards to make it the #1 job for everyone. If you fail PT one time that’s an automatic mark-down by one rating on the performance report. Also, if your waistline in rounder than 39 inches, blam, you failed to meet standards. These will force qualified people out of the AF…should it?…Depends. Debate another day maybe.
We can all have an opinion, but we don’t need to express it when it only serves to belittle, berate, offend, or harass. A standard behavior, i.e. actions, are do your job, take care of each other; and check the strip club along with politics and religion at the door…they do not help us defend this nation! Now you know some of my “actual” beliefs. ;o)
watchtower,
I think we are both arguing on what we think is best for the country in general and the military specifically.
I stated ‘core family’ as the ideal for what should happen. There are a lot of situations that are exceptions (violence, abuse come to mind), but it is scientifically proven that the #1 factor in the happiness of children is whether Mom and Dad love each other. That’s not to say that other situations cannot have happy children, it’s just more difficult. (FYI, I don’t have the specific reference, but if you challenge, I’ll dig it back up).
Remarks that favor one race over another, or one gender over another, should be punished. Jail time for opinions is extreme, but as our discussion proves, opinions about this topic become passionate quickly.
Qualified people do leave the force consistently. You bring up PT standards; the key word is ‘standards.’ The AF has decided that regardless of your primary duty ability, you must meet a specified standard to be considered qualified. When in the AF, your first job title is ‘Airman’ and then ‘pilot’ (or whatever your service speciality is). Other standards include not committing adultery or sleeping around with the enlisted force (or officer corp as your situation depends). Are there cases where those standards are not applied? Yes. Should that happen, probably no, but I’m not a Judge, so I don’t know the whole story.
Finally, we AGREE on when to not express opinions. Belittling, berating, offending and harassing show a lack of respect to each other and the military. Unfortunately there are extremes on both sides, as I have been criticized for having a subtle, passive, but open display of my faith. As it should, that display does not belittle any other faiths, but I have been berated because of it.
Thank you for showing your beliefs, I do appreciate it and enjoy talking with you.