From here:
WASHINGTON — As many as 95 percent of Marines would be uncomfortable serving alongside openly gay troops, the retiring commandant of the Marine Corps told Fox News in an exclusive interview.
Gen. James Conway told Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin that a majority of his men and women think a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring gays from serving openly will be problematic, so he has to believe that, too.
“When we take a survey of our Marines, by and large, they say that they are concerned that it will cause potential problems with regard to their order and discipline — that it will impact their sense of unit cohesion,” Conway said.
Gen. Conway was the first member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to speak out against a repeal earlier this year after Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen publicly endorsed President Obama’s desire to change the law.
The percentage of homosexuals in the military is in the “low single digits”, so why is this policy being repealed? Because it “infringes on fundamental rights”? – then why join the military; there is nothing quite as right infringing as being shot at by inconsiderate enemies. To make 3% of the military comfortable while making 90% uncomfortable? Because it has been illegal for the last 17 years and someone has just noticed? For the application of that elusive commodity, fairness?
Or to make the military compliant with the psychoses of our homosexualised culture?
[flv:https://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/videos/Marines_Chief_Warns_Most_Are_Uncomfortable_Serving_With_Openly_Gay_Troops_bitrate_1.flv 600 380]
Doesn’t Don’t Ask Don’t Tell mean that a gay person can serve in the military, as long as he or she hides the fact? Doesn’t that open those gay servicepeople to being blackmailed? Wouldn’t it be better to say, “yes you can serve” or “no you can’t”?
As far as I know, Canada allows gays to serve in our military. Our soldiers have seen combat. It doesn’t seem to have been a huge issue with us.
The Canadian Forces decriminalized homosexuality in 1992 and, since that time, the military has mirrored the rest of Canadian society. The Canadian Forces never bothered with a strange half-way step like the US military that I suspect was designed to placate the critics.
I have worked in closed proximity with gay/lesbian colleagues and have never witnessed – nor have heard of – any unprofessional conduct related to sexual orientation. I suspect that virtually all members of the Canadian Forces would laugh at both the General’s and David’s concerns.
I am surrounded by senior US military personnel (including Marines) at work every day and, although the US experience is somewhat different, I don’t think the transition will be nearly as traumatic as some are claiming. Nor do I think the evidence supports the claims that unit cohesion and morale will be affected. If existing regulations are used properly to deal with all forms of inappropriate conduct, I think the transition (which will happen) will be virtually transparent.
I think history will prove that people like General Conway were badly off mark in their assessment.
As a side note, the couple of times I’ve expressed these views on Stand Firm, the conversation has quickly deteriorated to name calling. I’ve been told that the US military is the only military capable of conducting any sort of effective combat and that the CF and most european militaries (who have no restriction on homosexuals in uniform) couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag. Rather than tackle the issue of whether or not homosexual behaviour should be legal in society at large, these people insist on battling to defend what they see as the last remaining bastion against homosexuality – even though the arguments they use are questionable and are most likely to be proven wrong by history. I dislike the term homophobe and think it is often misused, but I think it would be correctly applied to some commenters on Stand Firm.
Warren’s perspective is from hob-nobing with the brass. I know from personal experience that intolerance of gays is a barracks issue not a field performance question. Consider the macho mentality, almost a requirement of combat groups some gays would not be welcome in after-hours wets.
Homosexuality has its degrees of expression. In the military most keep a low profile, mostly for their own safety.
Steve, I’ll gladly put my “experience” against yours. If I go into work tomorrow morning and discuss this issue with several of the younger Canadian officers and non commissioned members I know, I have no doubt about the reaction I’ll get. The “brass” are the most reactionary – and the most out of touch with the typical recruit coming off the street. I worked in a school not so long ago that provides occupation training for a large number of young officers and non-commisioned members. I may not be so out of touch with attitudes in the barracks as you think.
I already had 15 years in the CF when the regulations concerning homosexuality were changed in 1992. I wouldn’t have believed it at the time, but I’m amazed at how quickly negative attitudes changed into tolerance and acceptance. Like it or not, that’s the way it is. I have no doubt that most of my military colleagues would far rather work with a homosexual than with an vocal conservative evangelical Christian. Again, like it or not, that’s the way it is.
I have a question for you (a few actually). Assuming you think the US military would be wise to retain DADT, do you think such a policy should be imposed in Canada? If so, what would be your rationale? Would you stop at the military, or would you advocate for such a policy for other groups such as the police, emergency workers, even teachers? Would you like to see homosexuality recriminalized in Canada, and are you advocating for this in other venues?
It may rankle, but I have no difficulty in reconciling my view that homosexual behaviour is a sin under God’s Word, with my belief that, since such behaviour does not violate Canadian law, I have no right to act predjudicially towards colleagues who engage in such behaviour. If they act professionally, I’ll respect them and be happy to serve shoulder-to-shoulder alongside them. Hopefully I earn the same respect from them.
P.S., in my 33+ years in uniform (38 counting cadet and militia time), this is the first time I’ve ever heard the expression “after-hours wets”. What’s the origin?
Warren,
What exactly to you mean by “predjudicially” in the context of whether someone should be employed in a particular position or not? The fact that you personally are not prejudiced against a homosexual serving with you is very proper, but hardly relevant to the issue.
Would you apply the legality principle to any activity that is legal in Canada – for example, would you be “prejudiced” against hiring a dominatrix as a Primary School teacher, assuming you were in a position to do so and she had the qualifications? Is the legality of a person’s actions or lifestyle your sole criterion – assuming adequate qualifications – for determining the suitability of a person for a particular profession.
Do you think Gen. Conway is that out of touch with the feelings of his men? Is his opinion merely a reflection of his being a “reactionary” – opposed to progress? He claims his marines say there would be a problem – why is what he is hearing so different from what you are hearing?
What do I mean by predjudicially? Most directly, attempting to obstruct someone’s legal rights; but I would also include harassment in any number of forms. No, I would not be “predjudiced” against hiring a dominatrix as a primary school teacher (for all I know, many primary school teachers may already fit that description). My criteria would be whether or not that person conducted themselves professionally and ethically in the classroom. I would apply the same principal more generally.
If I don’t think that someone who is involved in a certain lifestyle is suitable to fill a position – even though the Charter of Rights and Freedoms say that they are – then I should have the cajones to work to get the Charter and laws changed. I should also bear in mind that there are likely many people out there who would like to see the Charter and laws changed so that Christians are excluded from certain positions (e.g., the challenge launched by the BC Teacher’s Union in the 90s to have graduates from Trinity Western excluded from public school teaching positions).
No, I don’t think that Gen Conway is that out of touch with his troops. I do think, however, that there are a lot of politics at play. My point, which I seem to have difficulty communicating, is that when DADT is repealed it is highly unlikely that the doom and gloom predictions that are being made will come to pass. US military effectiveness will not suddently plunge, and, five-to-ten years down the road, most people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
It will be interesting to see what results come out of the DADT survey (although the response rate was very poor):
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/final-dadt-survey-response-rate-under-30-percent-1.114975
Then, with the current charter, you have to accept homosexual Anglican bishops.
No doubt, but I would have thought that the politics would be pushing him to say the opposite of what he did say.
Steve, that same argument could be applied against women in combat roles. That doesn’t seem to have been a disaster.
Kate, it was applied. I’ve been around long enough to remember that “discussion” as well. Now everyone looks back and wonders what all the fuss was about.
As the frog said when the temperature passed 98 degrees C.
Warren, I rather thought you would have recognized the short form of wet canteen, where us young LACs got our beer. Being gay in that kind of environment wasn’t healthy in my days.
And yes unrepentant homosexuality is a sin and your tone seems to suggest that you accept quietly it even with your disclaimer.
Women in combat roles is not the same issue, they have taken up arms throughout history.
When I joined 125 of us shared four rooms full of bunks, now in comparison it borders on hotel accommodation.
We had a couple of girls in our battery, they had trouble setting the guns but did not lack enthusiasm.
“THE WETS”
Her Majesty’s old Air Force
is gone and in its place,
We wear the green of unity
which lacks old charm and grace.
But memories still haunt me
of the wonders that I’ve seen;
And wonder of all wonders
was the Airman’s Wet Canteen.
No CANEX gift shops for us then
or choice of where to buy;
Just two canteens to purchase from,
the Wet and the Dry.
The Dry one sold you laundry soap
and other sundry gear;
But if you went to the Wet one,
you’d better just want beer.
If you liked soft upholstery
and tables neat and clean;
There was certainly no place for you
in the Airman’s Wet Canteen.
No genteel folk like officers
were welcome there you see;
Just the acey-deuceys and the ones,
and the old sweat LAC.
We were a young and rowdy bunch
who gathered in the Wets;
And the thing that kept us out of jail
was the presence of the Vets.
They taught us all the drinking games
and songs about the brave;
But the most important thing they did
was teach us to behave.
The code they taught was a simple one –
‘Don’t act like bloody sods,
And never let your buddy down
no matter what the odds’.
Now arguments and fisticuffs
were quite a common scene;
With bellies full and tempers up
in the Airman’s Wet Canteen.
There’s been a time or two I guess
I’ve joined the bloody lists;
But I always got more bruises
on my eyes than on my fists.
I may sound harsh and crude to you
but I never will be mean;
‘Cause I got my education
at the Airman’s Wet Canteen.
And the memories still haunt me
of the wonders that I’ve seen;
And the wonder of all wonders
was the Airman’s Wet Canteen.
Author Unknown
Steve, you may not think that women in combat is the same issue, but the arguments that were raised against it are virtually identical to the arguments I’m hearing as to why DADT should not be repealed. If it quacks like a duck . . .
You’re out of line, Steve. Warren was a warden at St. Alban’s, and I know him well. You are wrong about him.
David, come on now. That’s not really an anwer, and you haven’t answered Warren’s points. Women in combat roles hasn’t been the disaster that the naysayers said it would be. Neither have gays in the forces been a huge issue in the Canadian military. The USA is a very different culture, and I’ll grant you that it could be different there, though.
I can’t quite see why Steve is out of line; “tone seems to suggest” leaves plenty of room for “perhaps I misinterpreted your tone”.
I did answer the points Warren made that I thought worth answering here.
I admit, I’m actually more interested in what this particular issue reveals about everyone’s preconceptions and why they are pushing for or resisting the inevitable than I am about the issue itself. My frog comment was meant to imply that I think we are blithely trotting down a path that will eventually end in the destruction of the West; the fact that we can look back and say “there, that wasn’t so bad”, is just a symptom of the malaise.
anwer = answer
Do you think gay men haven’t? Not every gay man is effiminate, and not every effiminate man is gay. The orientation is pretty easy to hide, if you resign yourself to remaining single.
I got annoyed, sorry. He is wrong about Warren, though.
In this case, it really wasn’t. I don’t see women, or gays, in the military as a step on the path of the destruction of the west. What about the Christian gay man who is living a life of celibacy? Should he be barred from military service? As long as the person can do the job, follows the rules and behaves in a professional manner, he or she shouldn’t be barred from doing it. The fact is, that gays have been permitted in the Canadian military since 1992. It does not seem to have affected our combat readiness overmuch.
Perhaps; we won’t really know until it’s over, though.
Doesn’t follow, David. Freedom of religion applies.
I’m not so sure it does. As I understand it, the Canadian constitution protects an individual’s freedom to practice any religion he chooses.
Although it hasn’t been really tested in the courts yet, it doesn’t explicitly address who a church is permitted not to hire because of a particular lifestyle. And since there are bishops (in the US, at least and soon in Canada, I imagine) who can do the job according to the lights of TEC, and their activities are legal, not to hire them because of their homosexuality seems to me to be as prejudiced – in the sense that it is being used here – as not allowing gays into the military.
I did say unrepentant homosexuality which implies not being chaste (which also applies to non-gay unmarried relationships). The bottom line is I don’t think gays should be in the forces in any capacity, that is my position based on how I understand Scripture. I’m not the Supreme Court, but they only interpret secular law, even though they swear their oath on a Bible.
Bringing women into this particular discussion(?) is a red-Herring, about as much as the Van-Doos being predominately French. Those are not issues of what is right or wrong in Scripture, being a practicing homosexual is.
I would like to try and refocus the discussion. I support repeal of the DADT policy because I don’t believe that a reasonable and/or rational case can be made for its continuation. My personal views about homosexuality are not relevant.
As a long-time member of the profession of arms, I accept that I will not enjoy certain rights that the majority of Canadian citizens take for granted. If a bona fide case can be made for restricting rights for reasons of national security and/or military effectiveness, all military members will accept that such restrictions come with the territory. I take exception, however, to someone who wants to restrict my rights because of their moral position – even though I may personally agree with that moral position. I support the due process of law – even though I may not always agree with the outcome. If the outcome is unacceptable to my conscience, then I need to think long and hard about whether I continue in the profession.
Arguments were made prior to 1992 that CF combat effectiveness would be compromised if the regulations concerning homosexuality were changed (very similar arguments to those being made in the US currently). These arguments proved false. I believe they will also prove false for the US military.
If you think that people who self-identify as homosexual should be restricted from certain types of employment for moral reasons, then say so – and be prepared to fight the Charter and human-rights battle that will go along with holding such a position. Don’t hide behind a facade of what you think might happen in a barracks room or trench based on decades-old experience. It is such attitudes that give credence to accusations that Christians are homophobic and are unwelcoming of anyone of a different sexual persuasion – depsite their protests to the contrary.
Would you have VG Robinson as your Bishop or Priest?
So if I were to preach 1 Corinthians 6:9 – 10 am I to provide a disclaimer that the Charter of Rights and the courts have said this is just fine with them and besides this is now that was then.
If believing that a non-celibate homosexual is a sinner, that makes me homophobic. Love the sinner, hate the sin but do what you can to stem the tide of sin.
If you believe that practicing homosexuals have no place within church administration but it’s just fine someplace else I would take that to be hypocritical.
Steve, using your text, am I to assume that you would deny what most Canadians consider basic human rights to immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers? I’m inclined to accuse you of deliberately throwing up strawmen, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Why do you think it is inconsistent for me to accept that all Canadians, regardless of sexual orientation, should enjoy the same basic rights and freedoms in the secular realm, with a view that Christian leaders should satisfy biblical criteria in the spiritual realm? Show me how that is inconsistent with the Apostle Paul’s view of the Roman Empire.
I can’t help but wonder if our divergent opinions don’t stem from a different view of the two kingdoms. As a Christian, I am, first and foremost, a citizen of God’s Kingdom and am obliged to follow my King. I am also present and must function in the kingdom of man. Canada is part of the kingdom of man and is a secular society. Many Canadian laws and historical values may be based on a Judeo-Christian foundation, but Canada is not a Christian nation and the majority of Canadian citizens likely don’t consider themselves Christians. If this secular society that I’m part of demands that I do something contrary to the demands of my King, then I am called to obey my King; and accept the consequences within the secular society. This is part of taking up my cross. I am not called, however, to try and impose the demands of my King on those around me – people who are not citizens of the Kingdom of God; nor is it the role of the Church. In fact, the Bible tells me to obey the secular authorities. If, as an employer, I give a homosexual the same opportunity for employment as a heterosexual, I do not believe that I am acting contrary to God’s Word. Nor am I condoning his sin. If I waited to hire a sinless person, we both know how long I would be waiting.
I am temporarily living in a country where many Christians believe that their nation is a Christian nation, and that they, and the churches they belong to, have a divinely inspired duty to restore what they believe has been lost and impose Christian values on all citizens and residents of that nation. I believe that they are wrong and are conflating the two kingdoms. Maybe that is why I often feel very out of place here.
It also seems to me that many Christians live in a perpetual state of fear. They fear homosexuals, they fear Islam, they fear the new atheists, they fear secular humanism, they fear post modernism, they fear the new age, they fear wiccans – and the list goes on and on. On one hand, I find this humorous, because these many diverse elements should just cancel each other out. On the other hand, I’m saddened because I think many Christians have forgotten the real race that they should be running and the Kingdom that they are actually citizens of. It is no wonder that the distorted gospel they present holds so little appeal for the world around them.
If I carry on any longer, David may lose all credibility as a satirical blogger.
Too late.
I agree to some extent with your views of the kingdoms of man and God; however:
When you say things like “impose Christian values on all citizens”, it seems to me that you are going out of your way to negatively colour anything a Christian might do to build a better society. Wilberforce’s efforts to abolish slavery were a major imposition of Christian values on all citizens, but I presume you are not against that. Or do I presume too much? – would you say that no Christian should be active in politics at all?
Any law that is imposed on citizens is going to be an imposition based on some values; as a Christian, I think Christian values are better than any other values, so why would I not want civil laws and culturally accepted behaviour to be based on them?
Like it or not, we are citizens of both kingdoms and Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. In a tyranny that might be little other than obeying the law, but in a democracy, it includes the civic duties associated with a democracy, such as working for cultural acceptance of what is right rather than what is wrong.
When it comes to muddling the kingdoms of God and man, there is more activity from the Christian left, who seems to be intent on hastening God’s final rule on earth through their own efforts – a fruitless endeavour that usually makes things worse.
Perhaps you are surrounded by pathologically nervous Christians, but fear of the things you mention has not been my experience. The Christians I know – mostly in my parish – are quite intent on running the real race. Not that I am making any claims for myself as I struggle to climb over an early hurdle somewhere in the rear.
I don’t think there is any such thing as a “Christian nation” but there is – or was – Christendom and, although probably too late, I think it is worth preserving
I thought you encouraged hyperbole.
And how do you propose to keep them (or, more realistically, restore them)? Did the efforts of the moral majority and what followed achieve the desired results? Can you show me any statistics to suggest that either Canada or the US are becoming more “Christian”? Do you think that working harder on the political agenda favoured by the Christian right will convince young adults of my children’s generation that Jesus Christ is the only real answer?
No Christian that puts a political agenda before the simple gospel (e.g., that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures) – regardless of what end of the politcal spectrum he’s on – gets my support.
Individually they’re mostly great people. But, get them in a group and introduce certain topics, and things can quickly get weird. This was passed on in our community group at church yesterday:
http://tomanddebspicks.com/elections/home.html
(Tom and Deb are really nice people, by the way.)
Fortunately, I’ve yet to hear anything politcal from the pulpit.
Oh, and I was given an autographed copy (with a very complimentary note) of this book by the author today:
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/gettinginvolved/fr/Tea-Party-Revival.htm
Despite our frequent clash of views, he seems to really like me (and I respect him as well). I live an interesting life.
And I thought you encouraged moderation.
You’ve jumped to methodology. There isn’t much point in discussing how to encourage Christian values in a civil society when you don’t appear to think one should even try.
Obviously; but the Christian left goes a step further and wallows in an impossible to achieve utopianism.
I didn’t find what followed particularly weird, but the fact that you do does at least help me to understand many of your comments.
Appearances can be deceiving. Where we differ, I would suggest, is the appropriate means of “encouraging”.
That you don’t find it odd that someone holding a very senior position in one of the most influential evangelical ministries in the US and Canada would pass out his unsolicited and detailed recommendations for voting on Sunday monrning at church helps me to understand many of your comments. (To be fair to Tom, I know that he created the website because he was tired of answering the same questions over and over, and thought that a summary would be useful to many people.)
Do you think a Democrat who openly admits to being such in our community group might feel just a little judged even before they’ve had any opportunity to explain why they hold the positions they do; even though his theological postion is completely orthodox? No one would be openly rude by the way. I sometimes think the only reason some people are so nice to my wife and I is because we are Canadians and thus expected to hold an extreme socialist position. We’ve not seen the light and are thus to be pitied.
I missed the point that the person distributing political advice holds a “very senior position” in the church. So, while I don’t think the person’s political views are “weird”, using his church to disseminate them sounds like a mistake.
David, even though we may often disagree, I must give you much credit for your willingness to entertain open and free debate – even if it gets a little rough sometimes. You are a tolerant fellow after all.
I just discovered that if, your comment isn’t appreciated at T19, it just disappears – like it never existed. No warning or explanation given; and I apparently still have posting priviledges (although I haven’t tested it). If you’re curious, in response to sophy0075’s comment on the Canadian military officer exposed as serial killer thread, I responded with something to the effect of, “you forgot to add that, if only Canada had the common sense to allow everyone to carry concealed handguns, the crimes likely would not have happened in the first place.” Snarky I know, but the ill-informed and often ignorant Canada bashing that sometimes goes on on T19 and SFIF gets to me.
Please don’t get any ideas about making comments magically disappear. If I keep losing posting priviledges, I may have to start my own blog – which would be a painful experience for everyone.
This was the most unkindest cut of all.
Warren,
You are very unlikely to ever lose your posting “priviledges” here brother.
Who would we pick on?
Peace,
Jim
You do it by having “free garage sales”, by visiting prisons, by doing street outreach. I think that trying to do it through political activism is a fool’s errand.
The Christian right in the US does exactly the same thing. The only difference is the flavour of their utopia. The only explanation I have for why the right in Canada doesn’t do it is that they know they don’t have the political power to achieve it. The Christian right has just enough power in the US to fool themselves into believing that it is possible.
I believe that many on the right in the US have made an idol of politics. I also believe that this attitude probably pushes many otherwise orthodox believing Democrats into liberal churches.
I didn’t mean to give the impression that I think churches should be political lobbying groups, although I see nothing wrong in individual or an organised group of Christians doing that.
I don’t see anything wrong with it either, but I think it is a waste of time.
David,
Are you splitting hairs?
We both agree that faithful churches should promote the sanctity of human life. At what point does this cross over into the political realm?
Granted that the purpose of a church shouldn’t be political activism, but with governments making ever more intrusive laws, it’s inevitable that religion and politics will overlap.
Peace,
Jim
Possibly, but my concern is that by adopting a particular political position, a church might alienate someone whose politics are different – rightly or wrongly – before they’ve had a chance to share the Gospel with them.
Last week, my wife and I were in Bozeman, MT, visiting an elderly couple who we got to know through our church several years ago when they were spending extended periods of time in Canada. Ben is a retired Baptist minister and had close connections with the Billy Graham Crusade during the early years (he’s 82). They’re a wonderful Christian couple, but Ben has a black mark against him. He grew up in a Democratic family and maintained that political affiliation during his life. He can tell some interesting and rather sad stories about how he was often judged by other Christians based purely on his political connection. I can’t help but think of the Judaizers (and Paul’s harsh condemnatiion of them).
That works both ways, of course.
And it usually works the other way in Canada in my experience: on a number of occasions I startled fellow Christians into speechlessness when I declined to join in with their favourite sport of Bush bashing. They did start speaking to me again – eventually.
I think Bush was (and still is) a hero in US Baptist circles.
When a priest stands in a pulpit and tells you how to vote. When someone tells you that you are a bad Christian because you vote NDP, since the NDP is pro “choice”. I had people tell me that on the Essentials blog a couple of years ago. (That was the gist of it anyway, I haven’t dug through the archives to refresh my memory). When politics you hold become a litmus test for how good a Christian you are, as seems to have happened in many places in the US.
Innevitably Religious issues do cross over into other areas, such as politics, history, and science. We as Christians are called to be witnesses to God, and that includes God the Father, and also God the Holy Ghost. Not just God the Son. This means that we have a religious obligation to say to other people that certain behaviours are sinful (against the Will of God). Sinful bahaviours including stealing, telling lies about other people, failing to honour our parents, and certain sexual behavious such as incest, adultery, and homosexual bahaviour. That being said, we do not have a right to discriminate against people who sin, for as Christians we must first confess that we ourselves are also sinners.
I for one am in favour of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. If one such person is volunteering to risk life and limb for their country than they are deserving of my respect. Their service (and possibly their sacrifice) to our country is every bit as valid as anyone elses.
AMPisAnglican, I’m curious as to your biblical warrant for this:
I also can’t believe that you apply this principle consistently. Do you tell your co-workers and neighbours that they are sinning before almighty God because they are eating too much (gluttony), spending too much time golfing (idolatry), washing their car too often (vanity), always talking about winning the lottery so that they can get a new house (covetousness), etc., etc.? If you did this, you would likely end up with a plank in your eye – because someone would put it there.
Or, does this religous obligation only apply to certain sins and certain people that you choose?