Update on DADT PolicyFollow

He's just going to keep "what if'ing" you with absurd stupid scenarios until you agree with him.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of a crap ton of institutional homophobia, I don't think these are absurd. At all. You'd be amazed at what some people think it's acceptable to say to someone.



But what policy would he be breaking? That's my honest question. The protections against harassment are clear for race, gender, etc. They are not at all clear here.

Are chaplains allowed to refuse to work with people they object to for religious reasons?

lulz

Seriously? I know for a fact then you really don't understand religion as well as you claim as this concept isn't even a religious concept.

It's the difference between having the book smart of something without any experience or expertise to actually do it vs having the experience and expertise without knowing all of the technical jargon and history for what you're doing.

I took numerous swimming classes and grasped the entire process of how to swim, but in practice, my knowledge of swimming doesn't transfer over very well. Just because I know how to move my arms and legs to tread water, it doesn't mean anything if I can't actually tread water. That doesn't make the knowledge of how to tread water useless. I still need to know how to do it in order to be able to do it. The knowledge only becomes "useless" if I choose to never get in the water. That doesn't take away the value of the knowledge, just the usefulness because you CHOSE not to apply it.

So in reference to religion, it's no different. You have to understand the scriptures in order to have that relationship with God and Jesus. If you don't know what is written in the Bible, then you can't have that relationship with God and Jesus. You might have A relationship, but not the relationship that is sought after in Christianity.

The scripture is the knowledge of how to tread water. If you choose never to get in the water (have that relationship with God and Jesus), then the fact that you know how to tread water is not useful. Therefore, you can't claim that you are a better swimmer than someone when you actually can't swim, only posses the knowledge to swim. Once you put that knowledge of swimming into application can you start to compare yourself to an actual swimmer.



Further proof that you really don't understand Christianity. I was honestly thinking that you maybe one of those former religious people that just chose a different path, giving you knowledge of the religion. Now I see that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Religion isn't about bigotry and you're a tool if you think Christians allow those texts to dictate bigotry. As I stated with Idiggory, Christians typically use the religious argument against homosexuality, but only because it's an easy one to make. As you would agree, many religious people of any faith (along with non-religious people) are hypocrites. Many of them sin just as much as their "sinner" counterpart, yet they aren't out there actively fighting against "sins" that they are engaged in.

So why homosexuality? It's because they think FOR THEMSELVES, that its wrong and it's something that they openly agree with in the Bible that they are willing to actually support. So, I don't blame you for thinking that most/all Christians argue against homosexuality purely because God says its wrong, because that's the argument they use. I question any Christian who claims that argument, because unless they feel the same way about every other sin, chances are, it's their own personal belief backed up by their religion.

Edited, Jul 6th 2011 5:08pm by Almalieque

Edit: A common belief in the religious world is that the people who tend to spout off religious verses to others are the biggest hypocrites. Real people prove themselves by walking the walk. If you have to TELL people that you're religious amongst a group of "sinners", then you're doing it wrong.

Edited, Jul 6th 2011 5:13pm by Almalieque

"And the Lord says, 'Go Sox.' " John 3:16

Hell, yes. The childhood gospels are way more awesome than the stuff that made the cut.

Wait, which Andraste?

Excellent point!

Your replying to something while missing the context it was said in. Go read what I was responding to, namely the stupid comment of "your job seems to be drinking and partying".

Everything else you said I actually agree with. The Military exists to serve the people of the USA and to protect them from enemies both foreign and domestic. You actually take an oath that states that pretty clearly, and you must retake that oath every-time you reenlist. The military is a authoritarian dictatorship, everyone has someone in-charge of them and orders tend to start up top and roll down hill. The bigger the scope of the orders the higher up they originate. There is also this thing known as Title 10 Authority, it controls how the military can function within the legal framework of the government. The big take-away from it is that a General Officer (O7 or higher) can make policy with a word from their mouth and a swipe of his / her pen. That policy becomes regulation, it ~is~ the law unless specifically over-ridden by another policy origination from higher up. Failing to obey that policy is illegal and subject to administrative (Art 15) and Punitive (UCMJ) actions. The soldier in question doesn't get a chance to argue the validity, purpose, or morality of that policy, they must simply follow it. If they have serious issues with it, they bring it up to their chain of command and as a last resort they can write a letter to their congressman. Congress can overwrite Military policy although they rarely do.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/usc10.html

This is a very important distinction, something many of the anti-military (yes some of you are blatantly anti-military) simply can't get through their head. The Military is different, it has its own laws with its own legal system. It has its own lawyers (JAG / TDS), its own judges, its own police officers and even its own federal prison (Ft Leavenworth). Once you raise your hand and say that oath / sign that piece of paper your constitutional rights are effectively suspended. And this is where the misunderstanding happens, for a person who's spent their entire live with rights, the idea of them simply not being there is difficult to understand, if its even possible. Someone gives you a lawful order, you must follow that order. You don't get to say "no", or "I quit". It's either do it or go to jail (the worst scenario), or more likely just get a bad conduct discharge on your federal record.

So the idea of someone who's never served in any Armed Forces, much less the US Armed Forces, trying to talk about how the Armed Forces are, as in their trying to give expert opinion / information, is extremely insulting. Iddig and several of the other posters have absolutely no idea how the military functions or what life is like and yet they stand to make all sorts of non-sense comments and arguments. This is why I sat down and typed out a detailed explanation of what DADT was and what it was used for. I explained SAM and the role that takes inside the Military, especially in light of the articles of the UCMJ. I didn't do this for my own edification, I've had to give those class's that the military folks are talking about. The reason the US Military will not recognize SSM's isn't that there is some anti-homosexual policy / leaders, but that a federal law, the Defense Of Marriage Act, specifically prohibits it. Technically it's still illegal to practice deviant sexual acts in the US Military, as spelled out by Art 125 and Art 134-30 of the UCMJl. Hopefully they change the UCMJ and remove DOMA, that will make it possible then to recognize SSM and provide spouses with the same benefits. But until that happens the Military must make the best of the situation, thus the policy's that Alim stated earlier during his in-processing brief. They won't boot a soldier for stating their homosexual nor will they bar a soldier from reenlisting / enlisting for stating their a homosexual. The "S" and "M" parts of SAM are effectively suspended, but the "A" part still holds. Also commanders are cautioning their troops to be careful about stating their homosexuals as should the law swing the other way, should a conservative congress pass a law that re-instates DADT, then commanders would be forced to chapter those soldiers who violated "S" and "M". I'm actually for homosexuals serving openly in the US Military, provided they follow the same rules as everyone else, no special treatment, and no using the Military as a platform for political statements.

Now onto the final leg of the the discussion, Chaplains. So many of you are confused on exactly what a Chaplain is and is not. Firstly a Chaplain is not a typical soldier, they are not requires to qualify or undergo weapons training if their religion prohibits it. Chaplains are not supposed to be carrying weapons to begin with. There is a special MOS known as "Chaplain's Aid", 56M, that does that. This is an enlisted soldier who serves as a secretary / assistant and semi-body guard to the Chaplain. The Aid is not a religious figure and doesn't get any special treatment, their just a regular soldier, usually with religious leanings). Also not anyone can be a Chaplain, you must first have attended and graduated whatever school system your religion use's as a certifying agency. Catholic Chaplains are actually real certified priests, Protestant Chaplain's are actual "certified" preachers, same for the Muslim and Pagan (Wiccan) Chaplains. Those last two do exist but Pagan Chaplain's are exceedingly rare. In any case you must be endorsed by your religions "Ecclesiastical Endorsing Agency", seminary / Madras or whatever it is they use. That is how you become a chaplain, be endorsed by your religion as a priest and volunteer.

Now what exactly does a Chaplain do? Their job it to provide religious counsel and services for members of the US Armed Forces. This includes but is not limited to teachings, bible study, baptism, marriages and funerals. Unlike most soldiers, A chaplain can refuse to follow a lawful order if that order is against the tenants of their religion. This is where that CYA policy comes into play. Many religions teach that homosexuality is bad, and thus endorsing homosexuality is against the tenants of many religions. As such a Chaplain can not be forced to endorse homosexuality, and they must not be restricted from teaching their religion to members who desire those teachings. Chaplains do not stand are street corners preaching, their inside the chapels and their officers. They are there to provide spiritual guidance to soldiers who request it, you can not be forced to see a chaplain. Chaplain's are also used as religious advisers for the commander, meaning that if the commander has a question about the tenants and beliefs of a particular religion they will ask a Chaplain about it. This is a big reason the US Military is desperately looking for Muslim Chaplain's now, to provide commanders with insight and advice on how to deal with the tribal peoples out in the middle east.

Now please stop hating on Chaplin's, their not really soldiers their priests / preachers / clerics / druids. They can do all the rights and ceremonies of their respective faith's and are recognized as full fledged clergy by their religions.

"Soldier" is anyone serving in the US Army, this includes Enlisted (E1-E9), Commissioned Officer (O1-O10) and Warrant Officer (WO1-CW5). Other service branch's have their own terms, Airman, Sailor/Seaman, Marine respectively. As a former Soldier I tend to use the term "Soldier" to refer to anyone serving in the Armed Services, but that's just by habit. Chaplains are soldiers insomuch as they are Officers commissioned by the President of the United States, but their special status as religious figures affords them special rules, namely anything having to do with their religion. All Soldiers are required to adhere to AR 670-1, the Wear and Appearance of the Army Uniform, this is the regulation that states exactly how your uniform will look, what you can wear on it and exactly how each device will be placed. Chaplains are allowed to bend 670-1 to accommodate their religion. They can wear non-authorized religious devices on their uniform. Muslim Chaplains can wear their headdress for example, and there is currently discussion about Muslim Clerics being allowed to maintain their beards / facial hair (both prohibited in 670-1). All soldiers are required to qualify with their assigned weapon, this qualification is good for only six months at a time, deployment / extended field training / medical profile is the only excuse to not have this up to date. For most officers this is the M9 9mm handgun, for most enlisted this is the M16 riffle. Also members of a squad can be assigned alternate primary weapons, including the M249, M240B, M203, and M2 (50 cal). As a squad leader and later a platoon sergeant I was required to qualify on each weapons platform that was assigned to the soldiers under me.

Chaplain's don't have to qualify on nor do they have a personally assigned weapon. If they want they can go out to the range on range day and qualify, but that is purely at their discretion. Many religions preach peace and not to harm others, and thus many Chaplain's can not in good faith be expected to kill an enemy combatant. And ultimately EVERY soldier is expected to defend their positions and kill any enemy attempting to take that position.



All members of the Armed Forces are subject to the orders of the President of the United States and those officers appointed by him. So yes every service member is subject to the "chain of command", but there are some quirks. Namely not every officer is a commander, all must pull staff time, and as staff officers they have general military authority but not command authority. It gets into legal territory and I'm not a military lawyer, but there is a difference. A commander not only has the authority of command they also have the responsibility of command, authority can be delegated but responsibility never can. Should anything "bad" happen in a unit, the commander holds ultimate responsibility and will be the one blamed by the officer corps. There is also a second form of officer known as the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). This is an enlisted member of the rank of Corporal or higher. NCO's have general military authority, they can give orders to subordinated and those subordinated are bound to follow them, provided they are lawful orders. NCO's tend to be the enforcers of the policy's, regulations and standards. Then you have a special kind of Officer known as a Warrant Officer. WO1's are commissioned by the secretary of the Army not by the president and thus can not old command authority. Their usually enlisted who ascended to the warrant ranks, although civilians are also allowed to apply. Warrant's are technicians, they are expected to know everything in their field and are used as section chiefs, or advisers to the commander. Upon being promoted to Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2) they are recommissioned by the President and thus can hold command authority, although they rarely do. To accommodate the chain of command the NCO support channel is also created. The NCO support channel is the line of authority from the Branch Command Sergent Major, to the Squad Leader, its often used as a back door to get things done. If a soldier is having a problem, a Squad Leader can go speak to the First Sergent or Command Sergent Major about resolving that problem through non-command channels. Nearly everything in the US Army is done through the NCO support channel.

"Secretaries" of generals are officers themselves. Their known as Aide De Camp, or just "Aides", their usually personal officers. They take care of the scheduling and paperwork processing of their assigned general officer, they may or may not PCS when their GO PCS's, it all depends. Most Aide's I've seen are junior officers of the ranks O1 through O3, although I've known as few O4/O5 to be Aides to four stars. There is nothing special about an Aide, they don't speak for the GO, their just staff officers.



I'll post the oath all service members must take upon enlisting, there is a similiar oath the Officers take upon accepting their commission.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm


That whole part part supporting and defending, that means you might need to shoot someone tying to kill you or your fellow service members. All soldiers are expected to fight for and give their life for their country. Although we prefer to first give the enemy the chance to die for theirs. This non-negotiable, you can't be a Conscientious objector or a pacifist and be in the US Military. Their are two exceptions, one is for medical doctors, as their doctor's oath required them to save lives, the other is for Chaplains as their religious oaths may prevent them from killing.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this is the reason non-military types should be careful when tossing around opinions of the Military. There are so many things you guys don't know that it turns your uninformed words into insults. It takes years of service to learn all these things, it can't be learned playing CoD or reading a bunch of news articles on the internet.

Then you correct the OPINION by pointing out a FACT, problem solved. Nobody should ever have to be careful of his or her opinion because everyone is allowed to have one. yes yes they are all like ****' and they all stink.