Don't ask. Don't tell. Don't think.

To the Editor:

Now that the Senate has voted to repeal the 17-year-old ban against
homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military, Elaine Donnelly of the
Center for Military Readiness says several issues in the Pentagon's Working
Group report which now must be dealt with:

. A mandate to "prohibit the creation of separate bathroom and shower
facilities based on sexual orientation" (p. 18 of the Pentagon Working Group
report). Such a policy, tantamount to forced cohabitation of men with
military women, would disregard normal dynamics of human sexuality.

. Mandatory "three-tiered" education program, focusing on resistant combat
troops, to change attitudes and opinions on LGBT issues (pp. 25-26).

. Punishments for "resistance" -- i.e., zero tolerance of anyone who
disagrees for any reason, including "moral or religious beliefs" (pp.
50-51). Senate testimony confirmed that an undetermined number of chaplains
having moral conflicts with LGBT policies would be lost to the service.

. Unresolved issues involving marital status, including disparities in
benefits and access to family medical care in states that do not recognize
same-sex "marriages," plus access to military family housing for opposite-
and same-sex unmarried couples (pp. 19-21).

. Unresolved questions about morale and costs related to the retention of
HIV+ personnel, who must be retained in non-deployable status under current
regulations (p. 22).

The Senate's cave-in to pressure from activists to impose homosexual
behavior on our military will place our troops' religious liberties in
unprecedented jeopardy. No Americans, and especially not our troops, should
be forced to abandon their religious beliefs for some people's sin.


Pastor Terry K. Hagedorn
Calvary Baptist Church
PO Box 282 Reedsville, WV
Ph. 304-864-3870

http://mountainmanna.com

"Pointing Mountaineers to Mount Calvary."

It appears to me that Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness has neglected to mention the really, really important issue which now must be dealt with post haste, and that is:

The determining of the time, date and particulars for the anual .... Gay Military Parade down Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC.

This is a non-issue. Homosexuals have served in the military for centuries and will continue to serve. The difference is not that they can't be kicked out if they're found out.

Aaron wrote:This is a non-issue. Homosexuals have served in the military for centuries and will continue to serve. The difference is not that they can't be kicked out if they're found out.

No the issue(s) is/are:

. A mandate to "prohibit the creation of separate bathroom and shower
facilities based on sexual orientation" (p. 18 of the Pentagon Working Group
report). Such a policy, tantamount to forced cohabitation of men with
military women, would disregard normal dynamics of human sexuality.

. Mandatory "three-tiered" education program, focusing on resistant combat
troops, to change attitudes and opinions on LGBT issues (pp. 25-26).

. Punishments for "resistance" -- i.e., zero tolerance of anyone who
disagrees for any reason, including "moral or religious beliefs" (pp.
50-51). Senate testimony confirmed that an undetermined number of chaplains
having moral conflicts with LGBT policies would be lost to the service.

. Unresolved issues involving marital status, including disparities in
benefits and access to family medical care in states that do not recognize
same-sex "marriages," plus access to military family housing for opposite-
and same-sex unmarried couples (pp. 19-21).

I don't believe for a second that any of that will pass. It's nothing more then the right trying to stir up controversy where none exist.

You served with homosexuals in Vietnam Terry, you bunked with them, ate with them and even showered with the. The only difference is now, if they’re found out, they won’t be kicked out of the military. It’s a non-issue to the majority of the military and Americans.

It's time to let it go.

Aaron wrote:I don't believe for a second that any of that will pass. It's nothing more then the right trying to stir up controversy where none exist.

You served with homosexuals in Vietnam Terry, you bunked with them, ate with them and even showered with the. The only difference is now, if they’re found out, they won’t be kicked out of the military. It’s a non-issue to the majority of the military and Americans.

It's time to let it go.

You have watched Ellen one time too many, Aaron.

I've never watched Ellen Terry, I'm simply stating facts. It's a non-issue for all but those with an agenda from both sides of the spectrum.

Aaron wrote:I've never watched Ellen Terry, I'm simply stating facts. It's a non-issue for all but those with an agenda from both sides of the spectrum.

If Muslims can have convictions about pork, can Christians have convictions about homosexuality?

If soldiers are fighting in battle, do you really think they care about the sexuality of the person shooting beside them?

Aaron wrote:If soldiers are fighting in battle, do you really think they care about the sexuality of the person shooting beside them?

Yes...it is a great insult for a Muslim to be shot by a homosexual. Do we want to offend the enemy?

If we're going to nation build in countries we have no business being in, that's all the more reason to repeal the ban, don't you agree!!!

Aaron wrote:If we're going to nation build in countries we have no business being in, that's all the more reason to repeal the ban, don't you agree!!!

No. I don't agree. I think that killing Muslim fanatics in Iraq or Afghanistan is better than killing them in DC or NYC. Don't you agree??? (Aaron, look at it as mercy killing. These guys would end up honor/revenge killing each other any way. Our GIs can do it for them--painlessly.)

If I thought we would end up killing them in DC or NYC, I might agree. As I don't, I don't. The truth of the matter is we're in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil, not to fight fundamentalist terrorist.

Were we truly fighting terrorist, we would be in Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq and Afghanistan.

Aaron wrote:If I thought we would end up killing them in DC or NYC, I might agree. As I don't, I don't. The truth of the matter is we're in Iraq and Afghanistan for oil, not to fight fundamentalist terrorist.

Were we truly fighting terrorist, we would be in Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq and Afghanistan.

You got to start somewhere...

You let me know when the objective becomes fighting terrorist and not oil.

Aaron wrote:You let me know when the objective becomes fighting terrorist and not oil.

Okay. It's now. (Everywhere the radical Muslim goes, he becomes a blight on the society and infests the society with his damnable Sharia Law.)

If it was now and we were fighting terrorist, we would have troops in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen among other places, not Afghanistan and Iraq.

You can buy that tripe if you want to but don't try and sell it to me. While I understand where you're coming from Terry, I don't have an agenda with Islam like you do so don't insult me with that tired lie.

We're where we are for the oil and nothing else. You know that as well as I do.

Aaron wrote:If it was now and we were fighting terrorist, we would have troops in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen among other places, not Afghanistan and Iraq.

You can buy that tripe if you want to but don't try and sell it to me. While I understand where you're coming from Terry, I don't have an agenda with Islam like you do so don't insult me with that tired lie.

We're where we are for the oil and nothing else. You know that as well as I do.

Well, in protest, why don't you stop driving a car or heating your house?

So if we do not support the lie our government proports that is the war on terrorism, then we should stop driving or heating their home? Does it matter that I heat by natural gas which is a domestic product that I pay for? How about electricity, should I shut off my lights even though coal keeps them on? Or do I only have to forgo energy sources provided for by my tax dollars? Does that mean I should forgo all the uses of my tax dollars? Should I not drive on our roads paid for with tax dollars? Or if my home catches on fire, should I allow it to burn instead of allowing our tax funded fire department to aid me? How about if I'm robbed, should I not call our tax funded police department?

I reject your inane question for what it is, a ruse meant to distract from the real point of the conversation, this one being the war on terrorism.

I'm curious Terry, why do you have to resort to the ruse of fear as you do with DADT and terrorism in this thread to get your point across? Is fear all you have?

Aaron wrote:I don't believe for a second that any of that will pass. It's nothing more then the right trying to stir up controversy where none exist..

The Hate Crime Laws passed, didn't they?

Aaron wrote:You served with homosexuals ....., you bunked with them, ate with them and even showered with them. It’s a non-issue to the majority of the military and Americans. It's time to let it go.

Aaron, in reality it has ALWAYS been a non-issue with the majority of the military and Americans

Aaron wrote: It's a non-issue for all but those with an agenda from both sides of the spectrum.

Yup, and those are the ones that I believe was what instigated the instituting of the "Don't ask, Don't Tell Policy".

And I believe they instituted it for the same reason(s) that they shufflle Commanding Officers around when Troops are deployed to a "war zone".

Cheers

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:I don't believe for a second that any of that will pass. It's nothing more then the right trying to stir up controversy where none exist..

The Hate Crime Laws passed, didn't they?

Yep. And that and a wooden nickle won't get you a cup of coffee. The UCMJ will deal with the fears Keli listed in his letter.

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:You served with homosexuals ....., you bunked with them, ate with them and even showered with them. It’s a non-issue to the majority of the military and Americans. It's time to let it go.

Aaron, in reality it has ALWAYS been a non-issue with the majority of the military and Americans

Agreed. If you're in a foxhole with an enemy shooting at you, you don't really care who's beside you shooting at them.

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote: It's a non-issue for all but those with an agenda from both sides of the spectrum.

Yup, and those are the ones that I believe was what instigated the instituting of the "Don't ask, Don't Tell Policy".

And I believe they instituted it for the same reason(s) that they shufflle Commanding Officers around when Troops are deployed to a "war zone".

Cheers

I have no idea what you mean by that Sam. You'll have to clarify.

I have no idea what you mean by that Sam. You'll have to clarify. .

In some instances it is called "friendly fire".

I still don't have a clue as to what you're trying to get at Sam.

Aaron,
How would you fight a war on terrorism?

How do you fight a word or a slogan? How is "terrorism" any different then "poverty" or "drugs"? How would you fight those wars?