Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67
  1. #11  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    A soldier who disapproves of marriage or gay service members is still a soldier. If he is vocal or out of line about it, then he's disruptive. The military is full of white people who don't like black people and vice versa. It bugs the shit out of many people to hear Spanish or other foreign accents. Some people don't like Jews. Imagine that. But they are supposed to put that aside for the common good while in uniform (and to some degree out of uniform) aren't they?
    I don't think ethnic or racial prejudice is the equivalent of the religion, especially in the military.

    The military is about values. How else do you get a ragtag group of recruits to back each other up to the point of death unless you inculcate values like honor, honesty, sacrifice, and integrity? These values are not owned by any racial or ethnic group and all can join in these values.

    Religion, however, is also a location of personal values, and military chaplains have a definite role in the armed services as carriers of the values which religion and the military have in common, such as honor, honesty, sacrifice, etc. The Judaeo-Christian heritage has a well-developed language of such values, and chaplains of Christian and Jewish backgrounds have been present to minister to service people, on and off the battlefield, in illness, and in death.

    The problem is that certain values regarding sexuality have now come into conflict, and this seems to be enough to throw out the entire role Christian chaplains play in ministering to the troops.

    It's a values problem, and this is not as easily tossed aside as ethnic or racial issues. The very values people hold affect what goes on in battle.

    There is also something not mentioned in this article: other religions are also represented in the military, including, most recently, Wicca. This has also been a controversial issue, not only about values in general but about the permission for Wiccan military headstones, which contain the pentagram symbol. Even so, the army has given them full support since the late 90's:

    From 1999, Washington Post: Wiccan Controversy Tests Military Religious Tolerance

    KILLEEN, Tex.—Every full moon for the past two years, a few dozen off-duty soldiers have gathered at an open campsite at Fort Hood, America's largest military post. By day, they are privates and sergeants in the U.S. Army, training for deployment to Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo. But at these lunar assemblies they trade in their Army fatigues for hooded robes, chant to the lead of their chosen high priestess and dance around a fire well into the night.

    They are America's first official Army witches, with all that double duty implies: buzz cuts and pentagram rings, moon tattoos under uniforms. One typical dog tag reads: NAME: Philip Campanaro. UNIT: USAG III Corps. RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE: Wicca.

    After two years in peaceful obscurity, the Fort Hood wiccans -- their beliefs a blend of pre-Christian paganism and New Age earth worship -- suddenly find themselves in the midst of a brewing controversy. Last month, a photograph of one of their moonlit rituals made it into the local papers, leading some national Christian leaders and one congressman to begin denouncing their practices as satanic.

    Now the witches are forced to confront a question their predecessors faced since the dawn of Christianity: Should they retreat back into secret covens, or try their luck in the open market of America's scattered spirituality? The military, in the meantime, finds itself explaining what until now has been a little known but routine lifestyle policy: supporting soldiers who want to practice what the military calls, without passing judgment, "minority" religions.

    Two summers ago, the Army approved the Fort Hood Open Circle as its first official wiccan group. Without much fanfare, Fort Hood officials gave them a grassy campsite for their sacred ground, sanctioned their choice of high priestess -- even lent them an Army chaplain for moral support.
    If the Army is willing to officially support the Wiccans, what is the need to get rid of Christian chaplains? Shouldn't there be tolerance for everyone?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    It actually makes sense to have your most vocal and litigious objector on the team to craft a policy which his constituency will find acceptable.
    And which the remainder of the country will find apalling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    A soldier who disapproves of marriage or gay service members is still a soldier. If he is vocal or out of line about it, then he's disruptive. The military is full of white people who don't like black people and vice versa. It bugs the shit out of many people to hear Spanish or other foreign accents. Some people don't like Jews. Imagine that. But they are supposed to put that aside for the common good while in uniform (and to some degree out of uniform) aren't they?
    First, I don't know any Soldier who disapproves of "marriage". Many of us do disapprove of government recognition of gay marriage and the collapse of marriage as it is redefined out of existence, but by eliminating the "gay" in front of marriage, you are creating a straw man. You can stop doing that now. Second, it's more than just "putting that aside". The simple expression of one of the beliefs, in or out of uniform, is a career ender. A Soldier who knows that a superior expresses disdain for him out of prejudice has grounds for review of any disciplinary action or evaluation and it erodes trust in the chain of command. The DOD policy is zero tolerance. However, one used to be able to argue that the placement of women into combat or openly gay Soldiers into the force would have consequences. This renders that debate toxic and creates a PC military that cannot address internal stresses. The most egregious example of this mindset was the case of those officers who looked the other way when SPC Bradley Manning was granted a Top Secret clearance, despite his history of instability, his immaturity and, yes, his flagrant violations of prohibitions on gay sexual conduct. That failure, imposed by a culture of politically correct cowardice, has cost this nation tremendously. Manning should not have been in uniform, much less given access to the level of secure information that he deliberately released. Now, we find ourselves confronting a reversal of values that have been the backbone of the armed forces for decades, based on the whims of anti-military hacks whose interest in the defense of the nation against our enemies is somewhere between nil and zero, but who are rabid exponents of radical theories of gender and economics that have no basis in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    I don't think ethnic or racial prejudice is the equivalent of the religion, especially in the military.

    The military is about values. How else do you get a ragtag group of recruits to back each other up to the point of death unless you inculcate values like honor, honesty, sacrifice, and integrity? These values are not owned by any racial or ethnic group and all can join in these values.

    Religion, however, is also a location of personal values, and military chaplains have a definite role in the armed services as carriers of the values which religion and the military have in common, such as honor, honesty, sacrifice, etc. The Judaeo-Christian heritage has a well-developed language of such values, and chaplains of Christian and Jewish backgrounds have been present to minister to service people, on and off the battlefield, in illness, and in death.

    The problem is that certain values regarding sexuality have now come into conflict, and this seems to be enough to throw out the entire role Christian chaplains play in ministering to the troops.

    It's a values problem, and this is not as easily tossed aside as ethnic or racial issues. The very values people hold affect what goes on in battle.

    There is also something not mentioned in this article: other religions are also represented in the military, including, most recently, Wicca. This has also been a controversial issue, not only about values in general but about the permission for Wiccan military headstones, which contain the pentagram symbol. Even so, the army has given them full support since the late 90's:



    If the Army is willing to officially support the Wiccans, what is the need to get rid of Christian chaplains? Shouldn't there be tolerance for everyone?
    Our elites are tolerant of everything except Christianity and conservatism. To them, anyone who isn't part of the socialist solution is part of the counterrevolutionary problem.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Our elites are tolerant of everything except Christianity and conservatism. To them, anyone who isn't part of the socialist solution is part of the counterrevolutionary problem.
    I believe that of Obama and his ilk, but do you really see these strains in the military? Would a Republican president have brought in a Christian-hating loon to remake the military's chaplain system?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,309
    Something that I haven't seen mentioned here but what I see going on is a plan hatched in order to make the military unwilling to fight. Allowing gay soldiers to be openly gay, women on the front lines, and now this. All to weaken the military. Weaken our military and they're easier to defeat. This is all a part of the master plan.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    First, I don't know any Soldier who disapproves of "marriage". Many of us do disapprove of government recognition of gay marriage and the collapse of marriage as it is redefined out of existence, but by eliminating the "gay" in front of marriage, you are creating a straw man. You can stop doing that now.
    I was amused yesterday listening to Limbaugh go on about polygamy. How many times has he been married? How many times have you been married?


    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Second, it's more than just "putting that aside". The simple expression of one of the beliefs, in or out of uniform, is a career ender.
    Surely that is not the only such remark. Could you give me a list of expressions which would have the same effect so I can judge for myself if they are similar?


    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    A Soldier who knows that a superior expresses disdain for him out of prejudice has grounds for review of any disciplinary action or evaluation and it erodes trust in the chain of command.
    You forget that I have worked for two huge corporations. I am quite aware that anytime a black employee is disciplined she (and it always a she) goes to HR, claims it's because she black, and the disciplinary action is reversed. I will allow that this might happen in the military behind discipline of a gay soldier. Since it's hardly a unique circumstance then I don't see how it's a gay specific issue. What it really sounds like, is what I have said all along, you can't call people ethnic slurs anymore and now us meanies won't let you call gay men faggots. We've just taken all the fun out of being a nonchristian haven't we? You can't bond over calling gay people names. Boy are we mean.


    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The most egregious example of this mindset was the case of those officers who looked the other way when SPC Bradley Manning was granted a Top Secret clearance, despite his history of instability, his immaturity and, yes, his flagrant violations of prohibitions on gay sexual conduct. That failure, imposed by a culture of politically correct cowardice, has cost this nation tremendously. Manning should not have been in uniform, much less given access to the level of secure information that he deliberately released.
    George Bush was President when Bradley Manning went to boot camp clear up to his being trained for deployment to Iraq. Do you think it might have been some kind of stop-loss order rather than political correctness which cause him to keep slipping through the cracks? PS- I find no mention of his flagrant violations of prohibitions on gay sexual conduct" are you quoting from within?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Something that I haven't seen mentioned here but what I see going on is a plan hatched in order to make the military unwilling to fight. Allowing gay soldiers to be openly gay, women on the front lines, and now this. All to weaken the military. Weaken our military and they're easier to defeat. This is all a part of the master plan.
    When you go to work tomorrow, tell the black, gay, and female officers that they are part of a plan to undo order in the prison system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Manning should not have been in uniform, much less given access to the level of secure information that he deliberately released. Now, we find ourselves confronting a reversal of values that have been the backbone of the armed forces for decades, based on the whims of anti-military hacks whose interest in the defense of the nation against our enemies is somewhere between nil and zero, but who are rabid exponents of radical theories of gender and economics that have no basis in reality.



    Our elites are tolerant of everything except Christianity and conservatism. To them, anyone who isn't part of the socialist solution is part of the counterrevolutionary problem.
    Where is General Petraeus right now? How much of the American taxpayer money went down a rathole when this man who had done little else besides train and study for greatness fucked himself over with an ersatz socialite bimbo from South Tampa? How much is he costing us to this day? What's his excuse? How are gay soldiers the reason for the Petraeuses of the military, and they are legion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    A soldier who disapproves of marriage or gay service members is still a soldier. If he is vocal or out of line about it, then he's disruptive.
    No he's not out of line. He's stating his opinion and/or belief. Which despite what you think...is still allowed.



    The military is full of white people who don't like black people and vice versa.
    Yeah...we're just a bunch of racists. Idiot.


    It bugs the shit out of many people to hear Spanish or other foreign accents. Some people don't like Jews. Imagine that. But they are supposed to put that aside for the common good while in uniform (and to some degree out of uniform) aren't they?
    Actually we aren't the racist hay seed redneck bumpkins too stupid to get any other work that you Libtards like to portray everyone in the military as being.

    Go project your stupid Liberal stereotypes somewhere else.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,071
    Once again Nova twit shows his knowledge of all things military would only fill half a thimble.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,382
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    Once again Nova twit shows his knowledge of all things military would only fill half a thimble.
    Well that's ok because the other half is filled with his brain.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •