The President’s religious desire to reverse Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

On the subject of the “secular humanism religion” that guides liberals, it’s informative to read this quotation from William Kristol, writing about Obama’s sudden imperative need to do away with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the American military:

But the repeal is something that Obama campaigned on. He believes in it. But with all due respect to his sincerely held if abstractly formed views on this subject, it would be reckless to require the military to carry out a major sociological change, one contrary to the preferences of a large majority of its members, as it fights two wars. What’s more, it isn’t a change an appreciable number of Americans are clamoring for. And even if one understood this change to be rectifying an injustice, the fact is it’s an injustice that affects perhaps a few thousand people in a nation of 300 million.

But, “It’s the right thing to do,” said the president.

Here is contemporary liberalism in a nutshell: No need to consider costs as well as benefits. No acknowledgment of competing goods or coexisting rights. No appreciation of the constraints of public sentiment or the challenges of organizational complexity. No sense that not every part of society can be treated dogmatically according to certain simple propositions. Just the assertion that something must be done because it is in some abstract way “the right thing.”

In other words, although the liberal’s faith doesn’t derive from God, it’s a faith all the same.  The only difference is that liberals, because their unnamed God is the government itself, have no problem crossing the Constitutional dividing line and using the coercive power of government to force people to worship at their shrines.

For a cogent discussion of the practical problems that repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would create, read J.E. Dyer’s article and her earlier post on the subject.  And for a revealing look at the military bureaucracy’s lumbering agreement to comply with the President’s ill-thought out wishes, check this out, at the Daily Caller.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. suek says

    What ticks me off is that right now, there’s no preference shown.  As long as the person’s sex life isn’t part of his/her work life, it isn’t a problem.  Once it becomes a “known” instead of an “unknown”,  there are going to be lawsuits about preference or prejudice.  Personally, I think that this is the goal.  If you can’t be recognized as part of a “special” group, you can’t claim prejudice.  Once that identity is public, someone can claim bias.  It’s hard to stir up trouble when belonging to a particular group is sufficient to get you thrown out.  When it’s no longer sufficient to get you thrown out, you end up with a bunch of troublemakers protected by their “civil rights”.
     
    It’s clear by the demand that homosexuals don’t want to be treated “like everybody else” – they want to be _special_.

  2. Zhombre says

    I spent two years in the Army way back when, poor soldier that I was, but I distinctly remember that my personal life and personal preferences were subordinate to military discipline.  I don’t see homosexuals have any compelling right to be “out” in the context of military discipline.  Mission and group cohesion comes first, individuality second; a PC military is going to have functional problems, simple as that.   This is better left to the military to deal with than having some liberal pols making a statement for one of their voting constituencies.

  3. 11B40 says

    Greetings:
     
    I see a similarity between the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” homosexual initiative and the concurrent assault on marriage.  Both processes involve a very small minority of a very small minority attempting to redefine a major societal institution.  Unfortunately, the liberal view of what “the right thing” is not only includes things not in our constitution but ignores thing that are.
     
    Last evening, there was an item on the TV news about some individuals who were making a political statement about their right “to keep and bear arms” by openly carrying unloaded pistols in some of our areas businesses.  The argument that the reporter presented against them was that it made “some” customers uncomfortable.  Gee, I thought to myself, I wonder if anyone has ever become uncomfortable due to the integration of Negroes and homosexuals into public areas.  Probably not, but still.  Liberal ethics do seem to have some blind spots or should I say areas of non-concern.
     
    I share some of “Zhombre’s” military experience.  One of my managerial predilections was to preclude or remove distractions from the tasks at hand.  One of the soldiers in our infantry company received the infamous “Dear John” letter one mail call and shot himself in the foot later in the day.  However disruptive that incident was, a couple of episodes of “Desperate Homosexuals” could have even worse results over even longer periods of time.  Granted, I’m not a fan of the large number of females currently in our military or the miracles of modern telecommunications connecting soldiers in the field with their friends and family elsewhere either, but the idea that the homosexual floodgates are to be opened is appalling to me.
     
    It’s not like our military has demonstrated any capacity to keep its political correctness under control. As the recent Islamic attack at Fort Hood has sufficiently demonstrated, its ability to deny the obvious is certainly operational.  Once “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is rescinded, what’s the next turn of the “social justice” wheel?  Will President Obama attend the military’s first homosexual wedding or allow “glory holes in military bathrooms?  Perhaps an “Up Your Military Alley Fair” or just one big shower room for everybody?
     
     
     

  4. alphawolf28 says

    For all of you who are against allowing homosexuals to be open about their preference, you need to pull your close minded head out of your anus.  I, for one, am female, and I am also a lesbian.  I joined the Army in 1999.  I was the recipient of a Company coin in basic training for being a better prepared soldier than the rest.  So there goes the arguement of women in general, who are scientifically proven to be smarter, and have better reflexes than our male counterparts.  I was also top of my AIT class as a 96B.
    I then came out to my First Sergeant as being gay, and was hence removed from military service.  Most of you think its because we want the attention, or that we are there to flirt and make the rest of you uncomfortable.  Thats just not the case.  I did not flirt, I did not demand different treatment, and I did not disrupt the way of military life.  I flourished in it.  Look at all the different countries who have allowed gays to be open in the military.  There has been no negative impact at all.. in fact there has barely even been ANY impact.
    I would give anything to rejoin the military and not have to hide who I am like a big giant secret.  We allow rednecks and jewish people, all different races, religions, and both genders in the military.  We also dont stop idiots from being in the military, why stop anybody else?  Teenage boys with hormones and pimples and still going through puberty have more of a chance of disrupting the way of life in the military.
    You argue this shouldn’t be done while we are fighting two wars.. let us help you.  Thats all I want. I miss the Army so much.  I was great at it, and sex was the last thing on my mind, which is the only “real” reason everyone has such a problem with it.  You believe we are going to try to make everyone gay, and the gay men will hit on the straight ones.. well, the rules of the military are strictly enforced, and when they are not, blanket parties RE-enforce them, so you already know that that non-sense will not be a problem.

  5. says

    <B> I then came out to my First Sergeant as being gay, and was hence removed from military service.</b>

    How did he know that. And under DADT policy, was he not supposed to remove you?
     
    <B> I would give anything to rejoin the military and not have to hide who I am like a big giant secret.</b>
    ….

    I was great at it, and sex was the last thing on my mind
    While I believe you didn’t care about the sex, but then keeping your sexual preferences a secret should have been no big sacrifice considering how much you value being part of the military lifestyle.
    I see a qualifier on the first sentence. That’s like service members saying they’d give anything to rejoin their unit if it meant that they wouldn’t have to die, leave their families, or suffer other real world problems. You should make a choice as to which one is more important to you and then do what you have to do to get it. Considering your past, I can’t tell who shared in the blame, if any, so I’ll leave that alone for now.

    <B> You argue this shouldn’t be done while we are fighting two wars</b>
    Slight difference. Many of us don’t believe the Democrats have the best interests of this nation or our military, war or no war, in their hearts.

    If there were a better policy than DADT, conservatives would support it. That isn’t how it is, however. It’s not enough to say something is wrong. Got to come up with something better to replace it.
     
    I am neither against women or homosexuals in the military. However, I neither have nor have heard a better policy than DADT. Every policy has its flaws but I cannot support its removal simply because a President of the same party which created it in the first place, dislikes it.

  6. suek says

    >>I then came out to my First Sergeant as being gay, and was hence removed from military service.>>
     
    You knew the policy, you knew the results of coming out, yet you came out – to your First Sergeant.  Why?
     
    >>the rules of the military are strictly enforced, and when they are not, blanket parties RE-enforce them, so you already know that that non-sense will not be a problem.>>
     
    Exactly.  Yet you broke the rules.  Knowing the rules would be strictly enforced.  You don’t see a logical problem here?
     
    >>I miss the Army so much.>>
     
    I’m sorry for you.  We all make mistakes…some of them can be fixed, some cannot.  When they cannot, you just need to move on and put the past behind you.

  7. Mike Devx says

    I too am interested: Did you know the DADT policy?  If so, you were engaging in an act of civil disobedience, on purpose, and that always does (and should) carry the penalty of enforced law.  That voluntary acceptance of the punishment is the reason civil disobedience – done correctly – has moral stature:  You’re accepting society’s punishment for your protest because of your sincere belief that society (your country) is wrong, and you feel compelled to take a stand.
     
    The benefits of your clear conscience and your own sense of integrity and living honestly are hopefully worth the price you paid, since you do seem to honestly and greatly miss being in the service.
     
    Most of you think its because we want the attention, or that we are there to flirt and make the rest of you uncomfortable.  Thats just not the case.

    I’d bet that’s true for the vast majority, but sadly not for all.  As the links in Book’s post point out, lawsuits are one of the real problems.  The lawyers will flock to potential cases like starving rats to cheese.  Especially since we are in the middle of a cultural battle, and winning those lawsuits will be notches on the so-called civil rights belt… where everything associated with this cultural battle is viewed as winning a civil rights trophy, and NOT about the inherent rights and dignity of each American as an individual.  If you think the military will not be hounded by a tsunami of lawsuits, you’re fooling yourself about the radical “civil rights activists” and their agenda.  (Just take a look at how, in their hatred for Sarah Palin, the left virtually shut down the Government of Alaska with a coordinated fierce assault of a tsunami of lawsuits an FOIA requests there.  It was done with nefarious purpose then; it would be done to the military too.  That’s too, too sad, but must be taken into account.)

    I was great at it, and sex was the last thing on my mind, which is the only “real” reason everyone has such a problem with it.  You believe we are going to try to make everyone gay, and the gay men will hit on the straight ones.. well, the rules of the military are strictly enforced, and when they are not, blanket parties RE-enforce them

    I mostly agree with you here.  And I don’t give much weight to arguments about people’s “comfort level” with something.  That “comfort level” is perhaps the only way in which this gay-rights cultural battle is comparable with black civil rights battles of the past.  I have a relative who back in the day, when he’d be driving, he’d see a black guy and his white girlfriend strolling down the sidewalk, and you should have seen the result:  His hands would clench the steering wheel so hard it ought to have shattered, his pulse would skyrocket, his face flush, swear words under his breath muttered with great intensity… he viewed that black guy andhis white chick together as a huge  and powerful moral wrong.  (The white guy with his black chick, not so much… heh.)    So “level of comfort” is not very important to me…

    But I would add, when in Rome, act Roman.  I do believe in equality,though I don’t know much about life on military bases, here or overseas.  If you’ve got servicemen liplocking their girlfriends for minutes in front of the PX, and it’s considered utterly normal, then you and your girlfriend ought to feel free to do the same thing.   But if they weren’t, and you were, then you’d be being an ostentatious fool, doing your own version of winning your little civil rights trophy – “Yeah, see us and weep, you freaks!  We’re here, we’re queer, get USED to it!”  Hardly representative of a desire to join and stay in an institution and among fellow servicemen and women you revere.

  8. Mike Devx says

    That last paragraph above was meant to address how to act appropriately – the same as your fellow servicemen and women – *if* DADT were to be replaced by allowing gays to serve openly – not about behavior under DADT.
     

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply