Tag Archives: gay rights

January 23, 2013 · 00:52

The Painful Lessons of Looking in the Mirror of Social Media

orange-BloomCounty-morals

I had an encounter this last weekend on a leading social media site. It was not pleasant and I waited for a couple of days to think, pray and meditate on what happen in the encounter before I decided to write about it.

It occurred on a page which is pretty popular and deals with military issues and the man that runs that page I enjoy very much. He frequently brings up very pertinent issues dealing with military issues, strategy and tactics, foreign policy and national security policy as well as social aspects of current military life.

I got involved in an debate, probably not the best thing to do because the debate had already degenerated into a pretty vicious cesspool of recriminations between pro and anti-gay rights supporters. The subject was the actions of the Officers Wives Club at Fort Bragg North Carolina to initially reject the entry of the lesbian wife of a female Army Lieutenant Colonel for membership, the subsequent court battle and the wives club’s grudging issuance of a “guest pass” to the woman.

What got me to comment was the absolutely venomous tenor of the gay rights opponents, their often obscene comments about the lesbian couple and how many self identified as Christians or supporting Christian values. It wasn’t a matter of agreeing or disagreeing about policy and interpretation of law or even the validity or sincerity of their beliefs, it was the shameful way that they demonized and dehumanized the people involved as well as those that pointed out an opposing viewpoint.

I hesitated at first but then having seen such how such clubs deal with those different from their majority of their members I wrote this comment:

“in my experience of 30 years commissioned I have found many Officers Wives Clubs to be a cesspool of gossip and self-righteousness covered with a veneer of respectableness covering up their own vanity. Most often they are the domain of white women, who do not work and historically have shunned male spouses of female officers, wives that are working professionals whose identity is not built around their husband’s achievements as well as minorities, the physically disabled or wives of officers who spent years as enlisted men. The treatment of the Lesbian wife is another chapter in officially sanctioned discrimination. Chaplain wives organizations are similar, except you can toss in the stigma of not being a Evangelical or Conservative Protestant. Wives of Chaplains that don’t fit that mould are marginalized, be they Mainline Protestants, Jews or Mormons and of course wives whose faith is different then their husband, such as a Protestant Chaplain with a Catholic wife. My view, if they want to be a private membership that excludes those that they don’t think fit in, then meet off base…”

I don’t think that my comments were off base. They actually seem to describe the history of these organizations fairly well. However, my post attracted the ire of a relatively recent Army retiree and stupidly I shot back with a flippant comment. He had already been heavily engaged in the debate and the fact that I was a Chaplain gave him all that he needed to begin tThat comment was ill advised. A Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel friend of mine noted that I shouldn’t wrestle a pig. I ignored his advice as well of the advice Judy also tried to warn me off.

My flippant comment elucidated an attack from the man that went well beyond dealing with policy, law or even faith, it became a personal attack. To him my arguments did not matter, it was a matter of not only attempting to defeat what I said but to discredit and destroy me in the process. When I attempted to build bridges to dialogue and invite him to actually get to know me, he attacked more vehemently and personally making accusations about me, my character and my beliefs. Instead of debating any of my defenses of my position, theological or constitutional he dismissed them. His characterizations and comments that were so off base and wrong that anyone who either knows me personally or reads this site regularly would know that they were absolutely false.

But the attacks wounded me and left me incredibly angry. But that was not a bad thing. They caused me they think back to a time early in my ministry when I did similar things to those whose doctrine, beliefs or practices that I believed were wrong. I was very good at it. My Chaplain Assistant who is now a relatively senior Army Chaplain used to call me a “Catholic Rush Limbaugh,” even though I was not a Roman Catholic. A very conservative and reactionary Roman Catholic journal called The New Oxford Review published two of my articles back in 1998 and 1999, which ended up getting me banned from publishing for years by my the second ranking bishop of my former church. I was accused of being “too Catholic” and the irony was that he left that church well before I was forced to leave becoming Roman Catholic and writing similar articles to mine for a major Catholic apologetics online website.

So as I said I was good at this. With precise logic I could devastate others. The man that attacked me was much like me. I was seeing my old self in a mirror and it was not a sight that I enjoyed and it tempered my remarks to the man that I made in my defense.

It seems to me that those that argue most strenuously and personally are not necessarily bad people. They are consumed with zeal. Jesus had to deal with such people during his earthly ministry and every time he left them perplexed. I am not that good at this point in doing that. I simply gave up and told my attacker to “pound sand.” Jesus was much better at ending debates like this one than me.

I felt like George Costanza of Seinfeld trying to get the last word. Not very Jesus like, but revealing to me. Revealing to the point that I was reminded of Bonhoeffer’s words that “nothing that we despise in other men is inherently absent in ourselves.” It is a hard lesson to learn and it seems that I have to learn it more times than I like. In a sense it was like looking in the mirror but seeing me more than a decade ago.

Peace

Padre Steve+

8 Comments

Filed under christian life, faith, News and current events, Political Commentary, Religion

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 3, 2012 · 13:28

The Chicken Jihad: Chick-Fil-A and the Culture War

“We are famous for what we oppose, rather than who we are for.” David Kinnamon President Barna Polling

I seldom eat at Chick-Fil-A. Just never have been a fan.Not because of anything in particular, it’s just that I don’t eat much fast food to begin with. The fact that Chick-Fil-A isn’t open on Sundays means that they have one less day a week to get my business and that they don’t serve beer puts them low on Padre Steve’s food chain regardless of their religious or political leanings.  I do get a kick out of the Chick-Fil-A cows but that doesn’t get me in the door or drive thru. t have close friends on both sides of the culture war and try to be respectful of their opinions even if I don’t fully agree or disagree with them. However there are times when I think that culture warriors do more damage to their causes than necessary. But as a Christian I have to agree with Mark Twain who said: “If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a christian.”

I am generally apolitical when it comes to my appetite. I like what I like, I appreciate good food and good service and I try not to ask the politics of the restaurants that I frequent.  I am not a food crusader, nor am I a fan of the huger fast food chains that dominate our landscape regardless of their political or social leanings. To some on the extreme right and extreme left that would mean that I am somehow immoral. But I like what the Lord said to Peter when Cornelius the Centurion offered him a really good meat, cheese and pasta dish that was not Kosher. “He Pete, dude, don’t be uncool, it’s not freaky, if I made it’s good to eat brother, eat up.” (Acts 10:15 Rick James Version)

Now I can understand why my gay friends are upset with the remarks of Dan Cathy the Owner, President and Dictator of the Chick-Fil-A enterprise.  While I think that he has a right to his opinion, his religions beliefs and who he gives his political contributions his comments said as they were make him and those who rally around him look like intolerant boobs.  However, having a kiss in and public boycott as has been promised for today by LGBT groups just throws gasoline on the fire of intolerance. My advice, is to ignore him and don’t patronize his restaurant unless you actually like the food, service and the people at the local store that you know as people.  My goodness there are gays that work at Chick-Fil-A and they are the ones caught in the middle between Talibanesque religious leaders and LGBT activists.  They make their livings there.  I want to put the human face on this and and I think that they are the real victims of this jihad.

All that being said I think that American Christians, Evangelicals and Conservative Roman Catholics for the most part are making themselves look like idiots every time they decide to boycott a business every time that they disagree with that corporation.  Christian groups and ministries have been doing this for decades now. The fact that their opposites on the political left are now doing it to their favorite organizations and businesses is a bad Karma.

A recent Barna poll revealed what the new generation thinks of Christianity and the Christians does not paint a pretty picture: When asked to describe Christianity and Christians the findings said that Christians were viewed as “Hypocritical: Christians live lives that don’t match their stated beliefs;  Antihomosexual: Christians show contempt for gays and lesbians – “hating the sin and the sinner” as one respondent put it; Insincere: Christians are concerned only with collecting converts; Sheltered: Christians are anti-intellectual, boring, and out of touch with reality. Too political: Christians are primarily motivated by a right-wing political agenda.” 

I am a historian and have done a lot of study of Church history. The funny thing is that when Christians and the Church get to this point in any society it generally means that their institutional structures and beliefs are less about Jesus and the Gospel and more about maintaining their political, social and economic power and prominence.

But I am not surprised that we have reached this point. It shows that church leaders are decidedly ignorant when it comes to church history. I remember back in my seminary days how my fellow students did as much as the could to take the minimum amount of church history, systematic theology or philosophy. You see those things were not important and I would dare say are less important to church leaders than at any time in recent memory.

It has been said that those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The cultural jihad will only serve to drive people away from God and the Church and instead of reaching the culture for Jesus, they are doing exactly the opposite. It will result in hastening the decline in influence of Christians in society and continue to drive people away from Jesus.

The Chicken Jihad has become another ring in the cultural circus.

Eat hardy and stay thirsty. I’m going to get a burger and a beer and then go to a ball game tonight.  I just say to my friends and readers on both sides of this issue: Don’t have a cow.

Peace

Padre Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under christian life, marriage and relationships, News and current events, Political Commentary

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 28, 2009 · 12:07

The Practical Side of Gays in the Military

Note:  This is not a political or social screed.  I am not advocating immediate changes in law. this is really how I have seen military culture evolving over the 27 plus years of my career. These patently are simply my observations and have both a bit of seriousness as well as humor.  I am most definitely a dyed in the wool heterosexual, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I think that someone without a political axe to grind on either the gay rights or anti-gay rights movement who is in the military have to have a say.  I know that I could be wading into Vietnam here but here I go….

When I enlisted in August of 1981, gays were not allowed to serve in the military.  It was even on the recruiting form. Applicants were asked under the penalty of making a false official statement “Are you a homosexual?”  Who can forget the scene in Stripes where Bill Murray and Harold Ramis are asked by the Army recruiter “Are either of you homosexual?” Their reply was a hoot.  They looked at each other and Bill Murray replied “you mean like flaming or…” The recruiter then said “It’s a standard question we have to ask.” Harold Ramis then quipped “We’re not homosexual, but we’re willing to learn.” Bill Murray adding “Would they send us to someplace special?”  The recruiter then ends the exchange  “I guess that’s a no on both.”  It was a hilarious scene as we all had to answer the question.

Plain and simple if a person lied about being homosexual and was later discovered he was in deep dung, even an accusation of being gay could result in being charged under the UCMJ or at the very least investigated.  Soldiers could be taken to Article 15 proceedings  (Captain’s Mast in the Navy, Office Hours in the Marines) or possibly even a courts-martial. Depending on the charges one could recieve a punitive discharge, such a Bad Conduct Discharge, or administrative discharge under a General, General under Other than Honorable, or Other than Honorable conditions.

Back in my days as a company XO and company commander in the 1980s I had a number of soldiers, male and female who I knew that were gay.  I had grown up in California, had gay friends and even when someone was hiding it I pretty much knew.  If I was homophobic I could have made accusations, began investigations and made these soldiers lives hell.  At that point in time there were a good amount of people in the military who would of done just that.  These soldiers were exemplary in the way that they conducted themselves at work.  They were professional, knowledgeable and I never once had to take any of them to article 15 proceedings for any reason. They never refused missions, they were exceptionally responsible, and good leaders.  As far as their personal lives they were discreet. I am sure that if they stayed in the military that they probably maintained that balance.  I don’t know what happened to them later on, but they were great.   I took over company command as a very junior 1st Lieutenant. The unit had the highest drug abuse rate in Europe with more disciplinary problems than you could shake a stick at. I wasn’t about to go after soldiers who were not giving me problems, I had far more pressing matters on my plate.  I guess you could say that I was exercising the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy 7-8 years before it became policy.  My philosophy then as is is now, is that if someone is willing to serve honorably and endure the hardships and dangers of the lives of military professionals then they should be able to regardless of the way that they are wired.  My issue then and now applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals who are predatory or push themselves sexually on other soldiers causing problems with good order and discipline and unit cohesion. I have to say had far more problems with my heterosexual soldiers in this regard than my homosexual soldiers. My homosexual soldiers were discreet in their personal lives and very professional, some of my heterosexuals were neither discreet nor professional in thier sexual lives and relationships.

When I served as a personnel officer at the Academy of Health Sciences I became CINC AIDS.  I was the most junior of the Medical Personnel Officers, serving as the Training Brigade Adjutant.  It was at this time that we began having soldiers test positive for HIV and develop AIDS.  I worked with representatives of the Army Surgeon General’s Office to develop personnel procedures for HIV positive soldiers.  These policies gave them the opportunity to serve honorably and at the same time ensured that they did  not endanger others through their sexual conduct.  Since I was the junior guy I got to deal with all the cases of officers who had been diagnosed with HIV.  No one else wanted anything to do with them. While the world around me raged with apocalyptic screeds of those convinced that this was God’s judgment on homosexual; those who prophsyed how this virus would become a pandemic infecting people willy-nilly through casual contact, I dealt with real people.  These officers who wore the same uniform as me.  Some I knew were gay, but some were straight.  When an officer came to my office who was not on our brigade staff and the door closed, there was a good chance that the visitor had just received the news that they had an infection that would cause a process that would kill them.  They had received a death sentence.  I was a Christian and knew that I was going to be going to seminary after this assignment.  I could not see how Jesus could reject these folks.  While assigned there we had the first trial of a soldier who was intentionally attempting to spread the HIV virus among his coworkers.  He was a heterosexual and was a sexual predator.  He was taken to courts-martial and convicted.  As he was now in the latter stages of the disease process and battling the opportunistic infections which actually kill you he was sentenced to 6 months in Leavenworth.  I doubt that he lived that long. The experience of dealing with these officers taught me the torment that many homosexuals go through.  Following my time in the Army while in seminary and after it I worked in a variety of social service organizations and hospitals.  I knew many and work alongside many gays without a problem.

When President Clinton enacted the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy there was public outcry, especially in the military,  I had no problem with the policy as I think that everyone should be somewhat discreet in their sexual habits, especially in the military. Regardless of sexual orientation it is always important for military members to conduct themselves in professional manner, and  not only in sexual matters.  It is always a matter of good order and discipline.   While the policy made no one happy, gay activists did not think it went far enough and anti-gay forces hated it, I think it was a wise policy.  The President may have erred in the way that he announced it, but I think it was still the right thing to do at the time.

Since then our society as a whole has changed in its view and treatment of homosexuals.  There is a lot more acceptance of them now and many more people are openly gay.  I think that those who hid that aspect of their lives in earlier times now feel safe enough to come out.  Yes there are those who vehemently oppose any form of equal treatment for homosexuals, but there is a lot more acceptance. There have been famous military leaders who were gay  including Frederick the Great who was forced to marry but kind of liked other guys better.  Lord Kitchner and Sir Hector Archibald MacDonald, both distinguished officers were homosexual, MacDonald committed suicide when notified that he would be courts-martialed for his homosexuality.   There were constant rumors when I was in the Army about senior leaders who were suspected of being gay.   While a majority of military members polled opposed the Clinton administration change of policy, it seems to have worked.  There still are objections by gay rights activists that the policy is too restrictive and opponents who desire for it to be repealed, but in large part there is no problem.  Other countries  the British, Canadians and Israelis and a number of other European nations all allow homosexuals to serve in the military. Contrary to claims that the policy would destroy the military there is nothing to support that.  In fact the US Military has been more heavily engaged on multiple fronts since the policy went into place and done well despite being undermanned and often over-committed.

The Rand Corporation had a study of how allowing gays to serve would impact the military suggested the following was of ensuring that such a change would not endanger good order and discipline or unit cohesion, the two most critical aspects of any change.  They suggested:

  • A requirement that all members of the military services conduct themselves in ways that enhance good order and discipline. Such conduct includes showing respect and tolerance for others. While heterosexuals would be asked to tolerate the presence of known homosexuals, all personnel, including acknowledged homosexuals, must understand that the military environment is no place to advertise one’s sexual orientation.
  • A clear statement that inappropriate conduct could destroy order and discipline, and that individuals should not engage in such conduct.
  • A list of categories of inappropriate conduct, including personal harassment (physical or verbal conduct toward others, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or physical features), abuse of authority, displays of affection, and explicit discussions of sexual practices, experience, or desires.
  • Application of these standards by leaders at every level of the chain of command, in a way that ensures that unit performance is maintained.

It has been over 15 years since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy went into effect.  I have noted that while some military members still vehemently oppose gays serving in the military, that quite a few, officer and enlisted, especially those under the age of 30 are much more tolerant than were those of my era.  I was talking with a couple of military doctors and a hospital corpsman, all of us committed heterosexuals, not that there’s anything wrong with that the other day and the subject came up in a humorous way when discussing ways to get out of the military.  The corpsman noted that saying you were gay was one way, and I said, at least for now it was.

As we talked we all agreed that anyone willing to serve in the military at this point of time should be able to so long as they meet the professional standards of the services.  This is no gravy train.  Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen are constantly deployed and putting themselves in harms way.  If a gay wants to commit his or her life to the service of this country, who am I to object?

From a practical and somewhat humorous standpoint we have to acknowledge a number of things about gays, especially gay men.  Many are very well educated successful professionals.  Most seem to have a far better sense of taste and style than most of us on the heterosexual team and quite a few are very physically fit and health conscious. Anyone who has ever served in the military knows that we are not known for the greatest living conditions, food or ascetics.  Military housing, both barracks and family quarters tend to be rather boring, and often substandard.  There is not a lot of imagination in most military dining facilities, and the ascetics and design of many of our buildings and bases leaves a lot to be desired. Can you imagine if we let these guys serve.  Our bases would look a lot better and well kept.  Our living quarters would be nicer and more ascetically pleasing. The food would definitely go up in quality and we would get some highly qualified folks in the service, especially in some of the more scientific and medical specialties.  As a married heterosexual who is a uniter and not a divider I see all of this as a win win situation.  Who could be against that? I would have loved to drive onto bases where buildings and landscaping were done well, where you didn’t feel like you were driving onto a prison.  I’d love to work in buildings where there was some sense of style and artistry, where when you walked in you didn’t think you had walked onto the set of a WWII movie.  I would love a nice selection of food that was both healthy and tasty.

Will this happen anytime soon? I don’t know.  I suspect that at some point the President and Congress will address the issue and if it is changed I expect little practical change in the military.  We will keep deploying and doing our job, some people will be upset and some won’t, but I think there has been enough societal change over the last 27 years to allow this to happen relatively smoothly.  Will some people be unhappy, will crusades be mounted against it by some?  I think that there will be and some of this may take an ugly turn.  However I think that this will come more from the outside, but that in the end the military will survive and continue to do well.  After all, this is all well above my pay grade.

Peace, Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under Military, Political Commentary

Tagged as , , , , ,