I think I could come to like these guys.
The biggest difference between these guys and the nutjob in Florida that did the same thing? The nutjob lives in a free country where free speech is prized more highly than religious sensitivities. As a result, the likelihood that he will ever pay anything more than a modest "price" for his "offense is quite low.
Conversely, the two guys in the video face a variety of pretty horrific deaths if their identities ever become know. They are courageous heroes in every sense.
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Monday, April 11, 2011
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Where The Problem Is - Saudi Edition
We recently learned that a Saudi diplomat has asked for asylum in the United States. He is afraid for his life if he returns to Saudi Arabia.
Why? Good question.
He's gay.
He also has a very close friend....lady.....who is Jewish.
He's committed three of the biggest sins you can commit if you live in the Muslim heartland. And he believes that the government will try him and kill him if he returns home.
It seems that the Saudi's have learned of his "lapses" and opted to terminate his diplomatic position and have recalled him to Saudi Arabia.
Hopefully, our State Department will look favorably upon his request.
Why? Good question.
He's gay.
He also has a very close friend....lady.....who is Jewish.
He's committed three of the biggest sins you can commit if you live in the Muslim heartland. And he believes that the government will try him and kill him if he returns home.
It seems that the Saudi's have learned of his "lapses" and opted to terminate his diplomatic position and have recalled him to Saudi Arabia.
Hopefully, our State Department will look favorably upon his request.
Images of Mohammed
Most folks know of the serial kerfuffles that arose over various publications electing to print images of Islam's Prophet Mohammed. A guy with the nom de guerre of "Zombie" has developed and maintains an online catalog of images of Mohammed. Many of those images come from Arab countries.
The one that I like the most is this image of Mohammed that is currently on a wall/doorway in Iran.
Poke around....learn a little something....I found it fascinating.
After you get done with the art, you may as well try the letters.....from Muslims around the world.....to Zombie....telling him in very specific detail how they feel about his compilation.
Curiously, for a group that says it practices tolerance and peace, and as a group that expects tolerance and peace, they sure don't seem very tolerant or peaceful. At least some of them don't.
The one that I like the most is this image of Mohammed that is currently on a wall/doorway in Iran.
Poke around....learn a little something....I found it fascinating.
After you get done with the art, you may as well try the letters.....from Muslims around the world.....to Zombie....telling him in very specific detail how they feel about his compilation.
Curiously, for a group that says it practices tolerance and peace, and as a group that expects tolerance and peace, they sure don't seem very tolerant or peaceful. At least some of them don't.
From The Blogfather...
....UT law professor Glenn Reynolds, comes this interesting question:
By the same token, I think Glenn's question is an interesting one. Shannon invokes the incurious leftish model of "What's The Matter With Kansas?" Written by someone that is moderately left of center, he asks the eternal question "Why won't Kansans vote for Democrats that really have their best interests in mind?"
The unspoken additional rhetorical question being "Are they idiots?" The question is rhetorical as we all know about Kansan idiocy based on their voting patterns, don't we?
A better approach, and a far better read, would be for the same folks to ask "What is wrong with our agenda that causes Kansans to vote for Republicans?" Now THAT would be an interesting and introspective book.
For the record, I don't think the word "intellectuals" is being used to mean "college graduates" or "professors" or "smart people".
Question: If intellectuals are anti-American, is it surprising if Americans are “anti-intellectual?” Shouldn’t intellectuals be asking why do they hate us?Glenn links to this story over at the Chicago Boyz Blog where Shannon Love goes on and on and on and on and on and....where was I.....ah yes, much smoke, little heat, not really enough to get all that agitated over.
By the same token, I think Glenn's question is an interesting one. Shannon invokes the incurious leftish model of "What's The Matter With Kansas?" Written by someone that is moderately left of center, he asks the eternal question "Why won't Kansans vote for Democrats that really have their best interests in mind?"
The unspoken additional rhetorical question being "Are they idiots?" The question is rhetorical as we all know about Kansan idiocy based on their voting patterns, don't we?
A better approach, and a far better read, would be for the same folks to ask "What is wrong with our agenda that causes Kansans to vote for Republicans?" Now THAT would be an interesting and introspective book.
For the record, I don't think the word "intellectuals" is being used to mean "college graduates" or "professors" or "smart people".
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
A Timely Illustration - Cordoba House
I had suggested earlier that the Islamic center proposed by Cordoba House for a location unreasonably, IMHO, near the World Trade Center site would be misinterpreted by more radical Islamists as a sort of victory. Over the weekend, the terrorist group Hamas confirmed that my concern was valid.
Then I learned that the face of Cordoba House, Feisal Abdul Rauf, had refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist group.
Unlike Mr. Brown, I am not certain that Mr. Rauf is an extremist. I believe he is a moderate in the mode of other Muslim moderates. He either lacks the spine to actively oppose the terrorism that is being conducted in the name of his religion, or he finds those actions to be perhaps regrettable, but legitimate.
We frequently hear that Islamic Jihadism represents a small fraction of the Muslim world. We hear that there are many, many more moderate Muslims that do not support Jihadism.
Yet what we see is that larger group of supposedly moderate Muslims that continue to sit on the sidelines and pretend that their religion is not involved in diabolical acts. Even Fareed Zakaria's recent show illustrated the reluctance of supposed Muslim moderates to voice their opposition to extremism.
Such reluctance suggests to me that one of two things are true. One is that extremism is a much larger force in Islam than most people are willing to admit. Extremism that is capable of cowing so many moderates is not an insubstantial movement.
The other, less palatable suggestion is that these supposed moderates more or less approve of terrorist activities as a legitimate course of action.
In any case, if there is a shortage of mosques in New York, then they should build one.....elsewhere. The current project is too close to the World Trade Center site to permit a mosque to be built there now.
Perhaps later, after Islam has experienced their version of the Reformation, it would be appropriate to build a mosque at the currently proposed site. Perhaps when a nation's "Islamicity" is no longer a concern. Perhaps when other religions are tolerated in Muslim societies.
Not now.
And yet.......
Every once in a while you need to listen to the arguments on the other side. Or perhaps just other opinions.
Mr. Obama struck an appropriate note when he argued that Muslims have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to build places of worship in accordance with the usual local zoning regulations. He also noted that he wasn't commenting on the wisdom of that particular project being built at that particular place and at this particular time.
Was it smart to select that location at this time for a new mosque? Hell no.
Is it their absolute right....subject to the usual local zoning laws....absolutely. You don't spend a serious chunk of your life defending the idea of religious freedom just to toss it aside willy-nilly.
Roger Simon has a piece that I read as sarcastic criticism of those that want Mr. Obama to follow the polls rather than leading the discussion. I didn't think much of Mr. Clinton because he was such a poll follower. I did think quite a bit of Mr. GW Bush because he wasn't. I appreciate Mr. Obama's character because he does try to lead; even though his ideas as to what constitutes "good governance" appear to be predominantly useless garbage, socialistic claptrap, and statist.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has some similar thoughts to share.
Then I thought to myself....self, where are the other mosques/Muslim centers in New York City? And where exactly is this current project going to be located?
Ahem...to the first issue and *cough*....to the second.
I would certainly not ask for those existing facilities to be torn down and a few are located a similar distance from the WTC site. Therefore it is hard to see why a new mosque shouldn't be permitted in that area.
I also ran across this background piece on Salon.com that was very informative. And thus it appears that the folks at Cordoba House never linked their project with 9/11 or the WTC site. Their critics did.
Anyone who has never been snookered is free to cast the first stone. You folks that still believe in Social Security need to sit down first.
Howard Kurtz repeats and amplifies on the Salon.com story. He includes this from Mr. Rauf
Permit me to suggest that Mr. Rauf could "push back" more effectively if he could clearly identify and rebuke Hamas as a terrorist organization. He might also be more effective if he declined to participate in projects designed to accurate measure the "Islamicity" of a government. As with other faiths, anything more than a very low measurement is an indication of a problem to be solved.
So where does that leave us.
Does Cordoba House have a right to build a mosque at the proposed location?
Absolutely. Without qualifiers.
In light of the statements from Cordoba House and the projects financiers indicating that a certain respect for certain sensibilities is required if one wants to build dialog, was this a good location for their project?
Certainly not. Had they had any respect for the sensibilities of New Yorkers and Americans in general, they would have looked for a different site. Such respect is apparently unidirectional.
What would I like to see happen?
One of two options. Either they can find a more suitable location for their project, or they can stop being so "moderate" in their opposition to terrorism and governments based on sharia law. Being a little less tolerant of the intolerance common among Islamic jihadists would a step in the right direction. They should fully embrace the difficulties that all religious people have in living in a pluralistic and multi-cultural country.
And work towards a truly pluralistic and multi-cultural world.
And what if I don't get my way? What if they continue to be tolerant of intolerance and still want to build the mosque in that spot?
So be it. Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our country.
As is freedom of speech. And my right to grouse and complain about their project is equally important with their right to build a mosque and worship as they please.
The right to worship as one pleases does not mean that your religion may never be criticized. Welcome to the free world, folks.
A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.
"We have to build everywhere," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip.
"In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer," he said on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC.
Then I learned that the face of Cordoba House, Feisal Abdul Rauf, had refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist group.
Hamas first came up in the mosque debate earlier this summer when Abdul Rauf refused to describe the group as a terrorist organization -- despite the State Department listing that identifies it as such.
Tom Brown, a chief opponent of the mosque, said: "This is what we've been saying . . . Imam Rauf is a radical Muslim who will not call Hamas a terror group."
Unlike Mr. Brown, I am not certain that Mr. Rauf is an extremist. I believe he is a moderate in the mode of other Muslim moderates. He either lacks the spine to actively oppose the terrorism that is being conducted in the name of his religion, or he finds those actions to be perhaps regrettable, but legitimate.
We frequently hear that Islamic Jihadism represents a small fraction of the Muslim world. We hear that there are many, many more moderate Muslims that do not support Jihadism.
Yet what we see is that larger group of supposedly moderate Muslims that continue to sit on the sidelines and pretend that their religion is not involved in diabolical acts. Even Fareed Zakaria's recent show illustrated the reluctance of supposed Muslim moderates to voice their opposition to extremism.
Such reluctance suggests to me that one of two things are true. One is that extremism is a much larger force in Islam than most people are willing to admit. Extremism that is capable of cowing so many moderates is not an insubstantial movement.
The other, less palatable suggestion is that these supposed moderates more or less approve of terrorist activities as a legitimate course of action.
In any case, if there is a shortage of mosques in New York, then they should build one.....elsewhere. The current project is too close to the World Trade Center site to permit a mosque to be built there now.
Perhaps later, after Islam has experienced their version of the Reformation, it would be appropriate to build a mosque at the currently proposed site. Perhaps when a nation's "Islamicity" is no longer a concern. Perhaps when other religions are tolerated in Muslim societies.
Not now.
And yet.......
Every once in a while you need to listen to the arguments on the other side. Or perhaps just other opinions.
Mr. Obama struck an appropriate note when he argued that Muslims have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to build places of worship in accordance with the usual local zoning regulations. He also noted that he wasn't commenting on the wisdom of that particular project being built at that particular place and at this particular time.
Was it smart to select that location at this time for a new mosque? Hell no.
Is it their absolute right....subject to the usual local zoning laws....absolutely. You don't spend a serious chunk of your life defending the idea of religious freedom just to toss it aside willy-nilly.
Roger Simon has a piece that I read as sarcastic criticism of those that want Mr. Obama to follow the polls rather than leading the discussion. I didn't think much of Mr. Clinton because he was such a poll follower. I did think quite a bit of Mr. GW Bush because he wasn't. I appreciate Mr. Obama's character because he does try to lead; even though his ideas as to what constitutes "good governance" appear to be predominantly useless garbage, socialistic claptrap, and statist.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has some similar thoughts to share.
Then I thought to myself....self, where are the other mosques/Muslim centers in New York City? And where exactly is this current project going to be located?
Ahem...to the first issue and *cough*....to the second.
I would certainly not ask for those existing facilities to be torn down and a few are located a similar distance from the WTC site. Therefore it is hard to see why a new mosque shouldn't be permitted in that area.
I also ran across this background piece on Salon.com that was very informative. And thus it appears that the folks at Cordoba House never linked their project with 9/11 or the WTC site. Their critics did.
Anyone who has never been snookered is free to cast the first stone. You folks that still believe in Social Security need to sit down first.
Howard Kurtz repeats and amplifies on the Salon.com story. He includes this from Mr. Rauf
'We want to push back against the extremists,' added Imam Feisal, 61.
Permit me to suggest that Mr. Rauf could "push back" more effectively if he could clearly identify and rebuke Hamas as a terrorist organization. He might also be more effective if he declined to participate in projects designed to accurate measure the "Islamicity" of a government. As with other faiths, anything more than a very low measurement is an indication of a problem to be solved.
So where does that leave us.
Does Cordoba House have a right to build a mosque at the proposed location?
Absolutely. Without qualifiers.
In light of the statements from Cordoba House and the projects financiers indicating that a certain respect for certain sensibilities is required if one wants to build dialog, was this a good location for their project?
Certainly not. Had they had any respect for the sensibilities of New Yorkers and Americans in general, they would have looked for a different site. Such respect is apparently unidirectional.
What would I like to see happen?
One of two options. Either they can find a more suitable location for their project, or they can stop being so "moderate" in their opposition to terrorism and governments based on sharia law. Being a little less tolerant of the intolerance common among Islamic jihadists would a step in the right direction. They should fully embrace the difficulties that all religious people have in living in a pluralistic and multi-cultural country.
And work towards a truly pluralistic and multi-cultural world.
And what if I don't get my way? What if they continue to be tolerant of intolerance and still want to build the mosque in that spot?
So be it. Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our country.
As is freedom of speech. And my right to grouse and complain about their project is equally important with their right to build a mosque and worship as they please.
The right to worship as one pleases does not mean that your religion may never be criticized. Welcome to the free world, folks.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Everybody Draws Mohammed Day
As any person with a moderate level of political and social awareness should know, some guy started a Facebook page encouraging "everyone" to draw a picture of the prophet revered by the world's Muslims. The reasoning behind this stunt is to push the belligerent and extremists among the world's Muslims into doing something stupid.
It isn't too far afield from the several "protests" held in the United States where people walk, ride bikes, go to work in the nude as a way of protesting....something. Their reasoning goes that if you are offended by the sight of female nipples, then the protesters are going to bombard you with lots of nekkid female nipples until your brain ess-plodes or you develop some tolerance for having nekkid female nipples within your field of view. Or penises.....penisi....
Or the Vag.
In any case, that is the logic...such as it is...behind that Facebook page. [now shut down.....Google is your friend]
Mark Steyn isn't enthused with the idea, but he does commiserate with these agents provocateur.
So we know freedom of expression isn't high on their list of priorities.
Ann Althouse is a bit more firm in her opposition to EDMD.
That generates the larger question of when it is appropriate to do such things. I recall our beloved daughter telling the story about a class she took at UNLV where the subject of flag burning was discussed. Most of the class thought that flag burning was a right. She stood fast in her belief that you shouldn't burn the flag because of the emotional pain caused to those that possess a deep respect for the flag.
Stop for a moment and read that again. Those kids were having two different conversations. One wanted to talk about rights. The other wanted to talk about responsibilities.
We seem to do a lot of that these days.
In any case, I firmly support the right of anyone to burn the flag, show off their nipples, or to draw the so-called Prophet Mohammad. At the same time, such things shouldn't be done for purposes as low as "because I can".
Mostly.
The recent Facebook stunt seems to fall pretty well within that limit.
It isn't too far afield from the several "protests" held in the United States where people walk, ride bikes, go to work in the nude as a way of protesting....something. Their reasoning goes that if you are offended by the sight of female nipples, then the protesters are going to bombard you with lots of nekkid female nipples until your brain ess-plodes or you develop some tolerance for having nekkid female nipples within your field of view. Or penises.....penisi....
Or the Vag.
In any case, that is the logic...such as it is...behind that Facebook page. [now shut down.....Google is your friend]
Mark Steyn isn't enthused with the idea, but he does commiserate with these agents provocateur.
I'm bored with death threats. And, as far as I'm concerned, if that's your opening conversational gambit, then any obligation on my part to "cultural sensitivity" and "mutual respect" is over. The only way to stop this madness destroying our liberties is (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali puts it) to spread the risk. Everybody Draws Mohammed Day does just that. Various websites are offering prizes. I only wish we could track down those sicko Danish imams* who drew their prophet as a pig, and send them the trophy.Mutual respect should mean just that. An understanding that there are actions that are offensive and a mutual desire to avoid stepping on the other person's toes. Listening to NPR a little bit ago, I learned that the Muslims of Pakistan not only approved of their government's blocking access to Facebook, but they also view such things as acts of terrorism that require the immediate creation of international laws to protect their delicate eyeballs.
So we know freedom of expression isn't high on their list of priorities.
Ann Althouse is a bit more firm in her opposition to EDMD.
I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).The trick, IMHO, is to get those millions of Muslims that do not threaten violence to perceive their "own interests" to be best served by actively opposing the few belligerent extremists instead of simply remaining quiet and on the sidelines. The intolerant are not deserving of tolerance.
That generates the larger question of when it is appropriate to do such things. I recall our beloved daughter telling the story about a class she took at UNLV where the subject of flag burning was discussed. Most of the class thought that flag burning was a right. She stood fast in her belief that you shouldn't burn the flag because of the emotional pain caused to those that possess a deep respect for the flag.
Stop for a moment and read that again. Those kids were having two different conversations. One wanted to talk about rights. The other wanted to talk about responsibilities.
We seem to do a lot of that these days.
In any case, I firmly support the right of anyone to burn the flag, show off their nipples, or to draw the so-called Prophet Mohammad. At the same time, such things shouldn't be done for purposes as low as "because I can".
Mostly.
The recent Facebook stunt seems to fall pretty well within that limit.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Sauce For Everyone!
Remember 2005. The GOP controlled the U.S House of Representatives. The GOP controlled the U.S. Senate. The GOP controlled the White House.
The Democrats in the Senate were putting holds on then President Bush's nominees left and left. Remember how the GOP thought it might be a good idea to do away with the filibuster and go with a straight 51 vote majority in the Senate? Well this is what the Democrats said then.....
The money quote from then Senator Joe Biden:
"I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
Sorry, Joe. Prayer didn't work.
To be fair, some of the GOP "holds" are outrageous. Senator Shelby's [R-MS] hold on roughly seventy administration appointments that he claims will be in place until....essentially....Boeing is awarded the contract to build 179 refueling tankers is clearly an outrageous abuse of Senatorial privilege.
At the same time, bills are being processed through the Senate every week. The "people's work" is being done. The extremist stuff....like health care....that does not enjoy popular support is being blocked. That is how the Senate is supposed to work.
2005.....2010.....the only difference is the political labels of the people in the majority.
The Democrats in the Senate were putting holds on then President Bush's nominees left and left. Remember how the GOP thought it might be a good idea to do away with the filibuster and go with a straight 51 vote majority in the Senate? Well this is what the Democrats said then.....
The money quote from then Senator Joe Biden:
"I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
Sorry, Joe. Prayer didn't work.
To be fair, some of the GOP "holds" are outrageous. Senator Shelby's [R-MS] hold on roughly seventy administration appointments that he claims will be in place until....essentially....Boeing is awarded the contract to build 179 refueling tankers is clearly an outrageous abuse of Senatorial privilege.
At the same time, bills are being processed through the Senate every week. The "people's work" is being done. The extremist stuff....like health care....that does not enjoy popular support is being blocked. That is how the Senate is supposed to work.
2005.....2010.....the only difference is the political labels of the people in the majority.
CPAC And Gay Republicans
Megan McArdle has a brief story about Ryan Sorba's brief rant condemning CPAC for inviting GOProud; a group of openly gay conservatives. Mr. Sorba has issues with homosexuality. Megan indicated that he was booed off stage and suggests that this modest amount of progress is worth noting.
So I went looking for video or audio only to find a much longer story over at Hot Air. With video....
Now CPAC is a self limiting sample. There has been an "open tent" trend towards ignoring social issues in favor of the more broadly supported fiscal issues. However I'm not saying that the GOP is liable to adopt a platform position in favor of gay marriage anytime soon.
But you have to admit that you normally wouldn't have expected a room full of self described conservatives to [largely] boo someone off the stage for suggesting that homosexuality is wrong. Right?
An earlier look at the issue may be found here.
So I went looking for video or audio only to find a much longer story over at Hot Air. With video....
Now CPAC is a self limiting sample. There has been an "open tent" trend towards ignoring social issues in favor of the more broadly supported fiscal issues. However I'm not saying that the GOP is liable to adopt a platform position in favor of gay marriage anytime soon.
But you have to admit that you normally wouldn't have expected a room full of self described conservatives to [largely] boo someone off the stage for suggesting that homosexuality is wrong. Right?
An earlier look at the issue may be found here.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The World Has Changed.....
.....sometimes for the better. Take a look at the photos that accompany this story. Heck...read the story! Notice anything going right? Like folks with different amounts of melatonin melanin [thanks to Ruth for the correction] in their skin having a good time together?
Karma being what it is, I have no doubt that we will be treated to yet another story that reminds us that we still have a long way to go when it comes to race relations. We ought to enjoy the small victories when we can.
Karma being what it is, I have no doubt that we will be treated to yet another story that reminds us that we still have a long way to go when it comes to race relations. We ought to enjoy the small victories when we can.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Gay Rights....Individual Rights, You Can't Have One Without The Other
Okay, Okay....I know. It seems like it is all gay, all the time around here. Just bear with me.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.....well perhaps not all that far....I met my first almost out of the closet gay person. At the time, he was US Marine. Even better yet, he was a squared away Marine. His room was always clean. His uniform was spotless. His grades in various aviation electronics schools were great.
He was a poster perfect United States Marine.
Did I mention that he was a Golden Gloves champion in the city he called home?
And he was beginning to realize that he might be gay. At the time, I don't think he had even gone further than to just hang out with a small group of gay civilians. His mistake at the time was to admit that he thought he might be gay to one of the Navy doctors.
In a matter of less than a week, he was gone. All the work he had put into qualifying to repair aviation electronics was wasted. Three months in boot camp was wasted. He was just gone.
It wasn't too many years later that I began to notice that gay servicemembers were winning all sorts of awards. The one that comes to mind the most was the guy that was Sailor of the Year.....for the entire Atlantic command of the Navy.
Add to that the fact that other countries permit gays to serve openly without having their military services completely fall apart. Countries like: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland.....
Now hold it right there. The Irish can manage to have gays serving honorably in their military and the U.S. can't??? Sheesh.
...Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.
Robb Allen over at Sharp As A Marble served in the US Marines at about the same time that I did. His response is one worth sharing.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.....well perhaps not all that far....I met my first almost out of the closet gay person. At the time, he was US Marine. Even better yet, he was a squared away Marine. His room was always clean. His uniform was spotless. His grades in various aviation electronics schools were great.
He was a poster perfect United States Marine.
Did I mention that he was a Golden Gloves champion in the city he called home?
And he was beginning to realize that he might be gay. At the time, I don't think he had even gone further than to just hang out with a small group of gay civilians. His mistake at the time was to admit that he thought he might be gay to one of the Navy doctors.
In a matter of less than a week, he was gone. All the work he had put into qualifying to repair aviation electronics was wasted. Three months in boot camp was wasted. He was just gone.
It wasn't too many years later that I began to notice that gay servicemembers were winning all sorts of awards. The one that comes to mind the most was the guy that was Sailor of the Year.....for the entire Atlantic command of the Navy.
Add to that the fact that other countries permit gays to serve openly without having their military services completely fall apart. Countries like: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland.....
Now hold it right there. The Irish can manage to have gays serving honorably in their military and the U.S. can't??? Sheesh.
...Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.
Robb Allen over at Sharp As A Marble served in the US Marines at about the same time that I did. His response is one worth sharing.
In the Marine Corps, we knew there were gays with us. 99% of them were women and there was this one guy who everyone just assumed putted from the other side of the green. It creeped me out that he showered with us, but I got over that fast enough (I had a job to do and that was more important).
The people in the Corps today are generally not the same ones I served with. Today's Marine is more likely to not be as uptight about the gay cooties as I was. And as liberty minded as I am now, I see no reason to not allow gays to openly serve their country. Will it make some people uncomfortable? Sure. And my response is "Fuck 'em". I've learned that discomfort is not a valid reason to trample other people's rights.
I'm still not into the gay thing. It's not my particular bag of tea and I'm just as happy to not immerse myself in that culture. But I have no desire to eradicate that culture or to pass laws that makes people who are different than I am second class citizens. I won't join the Pink Pistols, but I'll be damned if I wouldn't stand side by side with a feather boa wearing drag queen to protect their rights.
It's time to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.Past time, actually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)