PDA

View Full Version : Subordination of personal belief to military service



Stalwart
07-14-2014, 09:39 AM
There has been a lot of discussion about the intersection of personal belief and military service.

I was researching a paper (yay PhD program) I am working on and found the following quotes from Supreme Court cases very interesting:

"But the very essence of compulsory service is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service." -- Orloff v. Willoughby - 345 US 83 (1953)

Service needs trump your individual desires

"The rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty." -- Parker v. Levy 417 US 733, 744 (1974)

Discipline and duty trump rights (in this case it was a free speech case)

What I find really interesting is that these cases are not new, and the case from 1953 involved a doctor who (after the military paid for his medical training) was denied a commission for refusing to swear an oath of loyalty and was made an enlisted medic.

"Under such a policy, members of the Armed Forces stationed at Fort Dix are wholly free as individuals to attend political rallies, out of uniform and off base. But the military as such is insulated from both the reality and the appearance of acting as a handmaiden for partisan political causes or candidates." -- Greer v. Spock - 424 US 828 (1978)

The military is not a debate club

This discussed distribution of political leaflets on Fort Dix, and I emphasize the words "the reality and the appearance of" purposefully, it seems that in today's environment any stance will be viewed as partisan in one way or another.

So whether we are talking about gays in the military, women on submarines or in combat, or any other issue where our moral convictions intersect our military duties, our professional duties are clear. What is complicated is that we are people too, and when we go home at night how do our personal convictions balance out against our oaths. Where do we draw the line on personal expression: none at all in uniform? What about on our vehicles (stickers etc.) when on base? What re the leadership challenges at various levels (Flag/General Officer, Midgrade & Junior Officers, Senior NCO's and NCO's and junior personnel)?

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 12:54 PM
Where do we draw the line on personal expression: none at all in uniform?

Exactly...

As far as vehicles go, that's a tricky one. We know what the reg says (that it's ok), and I find it hard to see how that could be changed. Now, the issue would be if we had a 5k fun run for people with Ross Perot stickers on their cars.

I have no problem with individuals supporting something. However, as an organization, it shouldn't be happening and government resources should not be used to do so.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-14-2014, 12:59 PM
There has been a lot of discussion about the intersection of personal belief and military service.

I was researching a paper (yay PhD program) I am working on and found the following quotes from Supreme Court cases very interesting:

"But the very essence of compulsory service is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service." -- Orloff v. Willoughby - 345 US 83 (1953)

Service needs trump your individual desires

"The rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty." -- Parker v. Levy 417 US 733, 744 (1974)

Discipline and duty trump rights (in this case it was a free speech case)

What I find really interesting is that these cases are not new, and the case from 1953 involved a doctor who (after the military paid for his medical training) was denied a commission for refusing to swear an oath of loyalty and was made an enlisted medic.

"Under such a policy, members of the Armed Forces stationed at Fort Dix are wholly free as individuals to attend political rallies, out of uniform and off base. But the military as such is insulated from both the reality and the appearance of acting as a handmaiden for partisan political causes or candidates." -- Greer v. Spock - 424 US 828 (1978)

The military is not a debate club

This discussed distribution of political leaflets on Fort Dix, and I emphasize the words "the reality and the appearance of" purposefully, it seems that in today's environment any stance will be viewed as partisan in one way or another.

So whether we are talking about gays in the military, women on submarines or in combat, or any other issue where our moral convictions intersect our military duties, our professional duties are clear. What is complicated is that we are people too, and when we go home at night how do our personal convictions balance out against our oaths. Where do we draw the line on personal expression: none at all in uniform? What about on our vehicles (stickers etc.) when on base? What re the leadership challenges at various levels (Flag/General Officer, Midgrade & Junior Officers, Senior NCO's and NCO's and junior personnel)?

It's also tough to subordinate your personal beliefs when you're convinced that certain elected national leaders "faked it" when reciting their Oath of Office, specifically the part that states "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 01:32 PM
It's also tough to subordinate your personal beliefs when you're convinced that certain elected national leaders "faked it" when reciting their Oath of Office, specifically the part that states "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something I've said before. I honestly do believe that most politicians actually believe they are trying to do what's best.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-14-2014, 01:37 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something I've said before. I honestly do believe that most politicians actually believe they are trying to do what's best.

I too definitely believe that. Doesn't mean they support, or are willing to defend our Constitution. It's very frustrating as a uniformed person to recite (and believe in) an oath that some of our elected so-called leaders have nothing but contempt for.

Rainmaker
07-14-2014, 01:53 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something I've said before. I honestly do believe that most politicians actually believe they are trying to do what's best.

Rainmaker's glad you are a glass half full kinda dude. it must be comforting to live in a delusional world.

Politics is legalized racketeering. power corrupts, we know this. limiting all political office holders to one term with no reelection, no anonymous private financing of campaigns, and then making them get the fuck out of office and go home with a lifetime lobbying ban.

If we do this, then it might START to fix it.

efmbman
07-14-2014, 01:54 PM
Even those comtemptable GS workers take a similar oath. It always seemed to me that those (especially not in uniform) that take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States actually have no idea what they are promising to do. It is a juxtaposition in that those in uniform, while swearing to support and defend will not enjoy the same rights that ordinary citizens enjoy.

This reminds of a thread in which PYB asked "Could you carry out an unconstitutional order"? I have to admit that I understand PYB a lot more now than I did abuot 2 years ago when that first came up.

Rainmaker
07-14-2014, 02:08 PM
Even those comtemptable GS workers take a similar oath. It always seemed to me that those (especially not in uniform) that take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States actually have no idea what they are promising to do. It is a juxtaposition in that those in uniform, while swearing to support and defend will not enjoy the same rights that ordinary citizens enjoy.

This reminds of a thread in which PYB asked "Could you carry out an unconstitutional order"? I have to admit that I understand PYB a lot more now than I did abuot 2 years ago when that first came up.

Rainmaker would venture to guess that most people under the age of 35 never even had to read it in school. Rainmaker hereby proposes that Every individual that enlists or reenlists should be given a copy of the constitution and made to pass a test on the bill of rights, in order to demonstrate that they know what the fuck they're signing up for. someone please put this on a AF 1000. and get rid of that God awful airman's creed with that sentry and avenger shit, while your at it.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 02:38 PM
I too definitely believe that. Doesn't mean they support, or are willing to defend our Constitution. It's very frustrating as a uniformed person to recite (and believe in) an oath that some of our elected so-called leaders have nothing but contempt for.

Don't worry. There are plenty of military members take the oath just as seriously as the politicians. The only difference is that we keep voting in the politicians who don't take it seriously.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 02:39 PM
Rainmaker's glad you are a glass half full kinda dude. it must be comforting to live in a delusional world.

Politics is legalized racketeering. power corrupts, we know this. limiting all political office holders to one term with no reelection, no anonymous private financing of campaigns, and then making them get the fuck out of office and go home with a lifetime lobbying ban.

If we do this, then it might START to fix it.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are many, many politicians who are now doing it for the kickbacks. However, I really think that when they start in politics they have the best intentions.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 02:43 PM
Even those comtemptable GS workers take a similar oath. It always seemed to me that those (especially not in uniform) that take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States actually have no idea what they are promising to do. It is a juxtaposition in that those in uniform, while swearing to support and defend will not enjoy the same rights that ordinary citizens enjoy.Yep...I had to say the oath to get my GS job. Not sure what the purpose was, really.



This reminds of a thread in which PYB asked "Could you carry out an unconstitutional order"? I have to admit that I understand PYB a lot more now than I did abuot 2 years ago when that first came up.

The problem with PYB was his comments and questions were about a different time and a different situation. It's impossible to know what decisions we would have made in the WWII era when everything was different.

Also, the other issue with him was he said he wouldn't have helped imprison the Japanese Americans who were locked up...but he also wouldn't have done anything to stop it. So the argument was more about whether he was ACTUALLY defending or just supporting.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 02:44 PM
Rainmaker would venture to guess that most people under the age of 35 never even had to read it in school. Rainmaker hereby proposes that Every individual that enlists or reenlists should be given a copy of the constitution and made to pass a test on the bill of rights, in order to demonstrate that they know what the fuck they're signing up for. someone please put this on a AF 1000. and get rid of that God awful airman's creed with that sentry and avenger shit, while your at it.

Wouldn't do any good. Hell, we all have access to those things now and most of us on this forum seem relatively educated...yet look at the disagreements we have about what the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually mean.

SomeRandomGuy
07-14-2014, 03:14 PM
Rainmaker would venture to guess that most people under the age of 35 never even had to read it in school. Rainmaker hereby proposes that Every individual that enlists or reenlists should be given a copy of the constitution and made to pass a test on the bill of rights, in order to demonstrate that they know what the fuck they're signing up for. someone please put this on a AF 1000. and get rid of that God awful airman's creed with that sentry and avenger shit, while your at it.

It sounds like you are advocating for all of us to become strict constitutionalists. If that is the case I guess we really don't need Congres at all. The Constitution is very clear on what rights we have and even how much of a person you count as (spoiler alert if you are a slave you count as 3/5). If we all become strict Constitutionalists we can simply follow the Constitution and any later amendment that was passed.

The big problem with this is that sometimes the "moral majority" passes amendments based on their beliefs instead of what is right for the country. See the 18th amendment prohibiting liquor.

The fact is that people in power have always done what is in their own best interests. This was true of some of our slave owning founding fathers. This was also true when people decide to prohibit alcohol.

It's amazing to me that people will say "those who don't learn history are destined to repeat it" then we continue to allow people to be discriminated against and we impose laws based on religion as opposed to our best interests.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 03:33 PM
It's amazing to me that people will say "those who don't learn history are destined to repeat it" then we continue to allow people to be discriminated against and we impose laws based on religion as opposed to our best interests.What laws do we have that are both NOT in the best interest and based on religion?

Rainmaker
07-14-2014, 03:47 PM
It sounds like you are advocating for all of us to become strict constitutionalists. If that is the case I guess we really don't need Congres at all. The Constitution is very clear on what rights we have and even how much of a person you count as (spoiler alert if you are a slave you count as 3/5). If we all become strict Constitutionalists we can simply follow the Constitution and any later amendment that was passed.

The big problem with this is that sometimes the "moral majority" passes amendments based on their beliefs instead of what is right for the country. See the 18th amendment prohibiting liquor.

The fact is that people in power have always done what is in their own best interests. This was true of some of our slave owning founding fathers. This was also true when people decide to prohibit alcohol.

It's amazing to me that people will say "those who don't learn history are destined to repeat it" then we continue to allow people to be discriminated against and we impose laws based on religion as opposed to our best interests.

Not really tracking the logic? How would our elected representatives actually following the constitution (or the citizenry knowing what's in it) equate to getting rid of Congress? of course having a Government is necessary for order. But, it's a self licking ice cream cone and must be restrained. 3/5ths of a person compromise was primarily about representation for the southern states who wouldn't join the union without it. By the way. The northern states wanted the slaves to count as 0/5ths of a person. The compromise did more to prolong slavery than curtail it. But, I'm not sure what you're getting at by bringing it to the discussion since, it's been obsolete since the middle of the 19th century.

*disclaimer* Rainmaker's not a constitutional attorney. But, he did stay in a Holiday inn last night.

TJMAC77SP
07-14-2014, 04:01 PM
Yep...I had to say the oath to get my GS job. Not sure what the purpose was, really.




The problem with PYB was his comments and questions were about a different time and a different situation. It's impossible to know what decisions we would have made in the WWII era when everything was different.

Also, the other issue with him was he said he wouldn't have helped imprison the Japanese Americans who were locked up...but he also wouldn't have done anything to stop it. So the argument was more about whether he was ACTUALLY defending or just supporting.

Well, there were (and are) a lot of problems with PYB but in reference to his stance on obeying constitutional law it is only his opinion that counts when deciding what is constitutional and what isn't constitutional. No one else's opinion counts (to include the Supreme Court of the United States.

Even his infamous reference to the US internment camps of WWII was flawed (and completely silly). The truth is that the first ruling by the Supreme Court ruled them constitutional and it wasn't until December 1944 that they issued Ex Parte Endo which in effect ended interment. In the light of history and evolution of society and absent the situation of the times, we (rightfully) view internment as morally wrong but it is beyond preposterous to compare a person and their decisions today with those of 1942. Even more absurd is to claim with any certainty what one would have done 70 years ago.

BENDER56
07-14-2014, 04:06 PM
It's also tough to subordinate your personal beliefs when you're convinced that certain elected national leaders "faked it" when reciting their Oath of Office, specifically the part that states "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

It's not tough at all, really. I served under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. Do you think I agreed with the policies and politics of every one of those commanders in chief? Of course not. If we focus on our jobs and our unit's mission, it doesn't matter one bit who's in the oval office.

Rainmaker
07-14-2014, 04:27 PM
Wouldn't do any good. Hell, we all have access to those things now and most of us on this forum seem relatively educated...yet look at the disagreements we have about what the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually mean.

You're probably right sandsjames. CANX the form 1000. It's a waste of time. But, can we at least agree to get rid of the goofy creed? Rainmaker's 2nd born son is getting ready to commission through ROTC and was shocked to learn that it was something they just made up in 2007 and MSgt(Retarded) Rainmaker didn't know it by heart.

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 04:34 PM
What laws do we have that are both NOT in the best interest and based on religion?

State laws that prohibit selling alcohol on Sunday.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 04:38 PM
You're probably right sandsjames. CANX the form 1000. It's a waste of time. But, can we at least agree to get rid of the goofy creed? Rainmaker's 2nd born son is getting ready to commission through ROTC and was shocked to learn that it was something they just made up in 2007 and MSgt(Retarded) Rainmaker didn't know it by heart.

Yes...that we can agree upon.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 04:38 PM
State laws that prohibit selling alcohol on Sunday.

And that hurts us how?

edit: Maybe I should have phrased my question in the previous post different. Which laws affected by religion hurt us?

edit the edit: And...how is it in our best interest to do so? It's really a law that has no impact on anything. Keep it...don't keep it...If you're not stocked up by Saturday it's your own damn fault!

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 04:45 PM
And that hurts us how?

edit: Maybe I should have phrased my question in the previous post different. Which laws affected by religion hurt us?

Hurts? Not sure I'd use that word...but, it's not in anyone's best interests.

Not the person who wants to buy...not the person who wants to sell. So, it blocks an economic transaction that would otherwise take place...slowing down the economy.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 04:51 PM
Not the person who wants to buy...not the person who wants to sell. So, it blocks an economic transaction that would otherwise take place...slowing down the economy.

Slowing down the economy? LOL...surely you jest...this is a silly hypothetical game to play, so here goes...I'd say it helps the economy because alcohol drinkers are forced to by other products, helping out the business of other companies. At the same time it gives the person's liver a day to recover (assuming they don't have any alcohol in the house). This decreases damage to the liver by 1/7th. In the long run, it saves medical costs which come out of the taxpayers pocket. So, I have more money in my pocket to put into the economy, as does every other taxpayer.

Rainmaker
07-14-2014, 05:00 PM
Hurts? Not sure I'd use that word...but, it's not in anyone's best interests.

Not the person who wants to buy...not the person who wants to sell. So, it blocks an economic transaction that would otherwise take place...slowing down the economy.

and Never forget. All of our Nation's wars have been won by drinkers and smokers.

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 05:19 PM
Slowing down the economy? LOL...surely you jest...this is a silly hypothetical game to play, so here goes...I'd say it helps the economy because alcohol drinkers are forced to by other products, helping out the business of other companies.

How does not being able to buy alcohol force you to buy something else?

Why are the other companies more important that alcohol makers and retailers?


At the same time it gives the person's liver a day to recover (assuming they don't have any alcohol in the house). This decreases damage to the liver by 1/7th. In the long run, it saves medical costs which come out of the taxpayers pocket. So, I have more money in my pocket to put into the economy, as does every other taxpayer.

Okay, one point.

SomeRandomGuy
07-14-2014, 05:25 PM
What laws do we have that are both NOT in the best interest and based on religion?

In my opinion Marijuana laws are a good example of something that is at least partially based on religion and is also not in the best interest of society.

Since the beginning of time people have been using mind altering substances to escape from the fact that their life sucks. Religious people generally don't need these substances because they can just get out their handy little book that tells them god loves them and wants them to be happy.

So when special interest groups or lobbyists want to ban marijuana they know they can get it done. The reason for this is that a huge majority of religious people are automatically going to support banning marijuana mostly because they don't use it.

I find this attitude prevelant in many religious people's voting habits. They don't mind if laws limit your rights but they will be damned if you try to tell them they can't open a city council meeting with a prayer. When you suggest that would also mean a muslim mayor could open the meeting with a nice muslim prayer their opinion changes. You see, people don't want true religious freedom or even true freedom. What they want is freedom to do the things they like while stopping you from doing the things you like.

The last 10 or 20 years we have seen a similar war on smokers. For years enough people smoked that you could get away with doing it anywehere you wanted. This included enclosed spaces like your workplace and even commercial airliners. Eventually non-smokers became a large majority. First, we reclaimed our right for you not to smoke in enclosed spaces. We completely banned smoking on airplanes. Next, we sectioned off restaurants but later we decided you need to take it outside. These days taking it outside isn't even good enough. You need to go to a designated area at least 100 yards from the entrance.

Now that we have sucessfully booted smokers from ruining our air we have taken the battle elsewhere. Now we have decided that we should tax the hell out of them in hopes that they will quit. Any time cigarette taxes come up for vote they almost always pass. The fact is people who don't smoke could care less how much you pay in tax for your cigarettes so they just vote with the majority. The problem is what happens when you aren't in the majority on an issue? Who will defend your rights?

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 06:01 PM
edit the edit: And...how is it in our best interest to do so? It's really a law that has no impact on anything.

...unless you own a liquor store.

So, if it really has no impact, then it isn't in the "best interests"...so, the meets the original test.

NOT in best interests--check

Based on religion.--check


Keep it...don't keep it...If you're not stocked up by Saturday it's your own damn fault!

Probably true if you live in these places, you'd learn to stock up on Saturday.

But, for me, I was merely visiting Tennessee last year and went to go get a bottle of wine to have with a nice family dinner...and didn't realize I couldn't get one on Sunday. So, my $30 came back to California with me.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 06:31 PM
...unless you own a liquor store.

So, if it really has no impact, then it isn't in the "best interests"...so, the meets the original test.

NOT in best interests--check

Based on religion.--check



Probably true if you live in these places, you'd learn to stock up on Saturday.

But, for me, I was merely visiting Tennessee last year and went to go get a bottle of wine to have with a nice family dinner...and didn't realize I couldn't get one on Sunday. So, my $30 came back to California with me.

And if you open a business in these places you would be aware of the liquor laws.

And that $30 dollars went into the California economy, which is far more important than the Tennessee economy...You should thank Tennessee.

I moved into a dry town. I wasn't aware it was a dry town. Went to buy beer and they told me I couldn't. Drove to a Walmart 5 minutes outside town and bought my beer.

And, more importantly, I can't believe we are still carrying on this conversation.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 06:32 PM
In my opinion Marijuana laws are a good example of something that is at least partially based on religion and is also not in the best interest of society.

Since the beginning of time people have been using mind altering substances to escape from the fact that their life sucks. Religious people generally don't need these substances because they can just get out their handy little book that tells them god loves them and wants them to be happy.

So when special interest groups or lobbyists want to ban marijuana they know they can get it done. The reason for this is that a huge majority of religious people are automatically going to support banning marijuana mostly because they don't use it.

I find this attitude prevelant in many religious people's voting habits. They don't mind if laws limit your rights but they will be damned if you try to tell them they can't open a city council meeting with a prayer. When you suggest that would also mean a muslim mayor could open the meeting with a nice muslim prayer their opinion changes. You see, people don't want true religious freedom or even true freedom. What they want is freedom to do the things they like while stopping you from doing the things you like.

The last 10 or 20 years we have seen a similar war on smokers. For years enough people smoked that you could get away with doing it anywehere you wanted. This included enclosed spaces like your workplace and even commercial airliners. Eventually non-smokers became a large majority. First, we reclaimed our right for you not to smoke in enclosed spaces. We completely banned smoking on airplanes. Next, we sectioned off restaurants but later we decided you need to take it outside. These days taking it outside isn't even good enough. You need to go to a designated area at least 100 yards from the entrance.

Now that we have sucessfully booted smokers from ruining our air we have taken the battle elsewhere. Now we have decided that we should tax the hell out of them in hopes that they will quit. Any time cigarette taxes come up for vote they almost always pass. The fact is people who don't smoke could care less how much you pay in tax for your cigarettes so they just vote with the majority. The problem is what happens when you aren't in the majority on an issue? Who will defend your rights?



What rights are we talking about?

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 06:35 PM
And if you open a business in these places you would be aware of the liquor laws.

...and this makes the law serve best interests how?


And that $30 dollars went into the California economy, which is far more important than the Tennessee economy...You should thank Tennessee.

No, it's still in my bank account. I didn't go back home and spend an extra $30 just because I couldn't spend it in TN..


I moved into a dry town. I wasn't aware it was a dry town. Went to buy beer and they told me I couldn't. Drove to a Walmart 5 minutes outside town and bought my beer.

OK. I'm not sure why this makes it a good law.

If you're point is that these laws are "not that bad"...then I'd agree with that. They are a relatively minor irritant...which makes me wonder why they even bother to pass them. Do they really think that since I couldn't buy a bottle of wine on Sunday, I'd go to church?

Still meets the original point of the question.


And, more importantly, I can't believe we are still carrying on this conversation.

Monday blues.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 06:46 PM
...and this makes the law serve best interests how? I'd assume that the people who live in the town/county who vote for the representatives find it in their best interest. Kind of the point of local governments. Same reason that banning smoking in public in Berkely, CA is ok. That's what the people wanted. I have the choice to not visit or live in Berkely. The community feels that it is in their best interest not to have people smoking around them. Is it in their best interest? Probably not.

By the way...came back to live in the same town. A recent election (about 2 years ago) got rid of the "dry town" laws. The people who live there now and vote for the local laws voted to overturn it. It's now in the best interest of the town to sell alcohol.




No, it's still in my bank account. I didn't go back home and spend an extra $30 just because I couldn't spend it in TN.. Damn...you are a thrifty one if you can account for $30 you spent, or didn't spend, a year ago.


OK. I'm not sure why this makes it a good law.

If you're point is that these laws are "not that bad"...then I'd agree with that. Still meets the original point of the question. It does indeed, I suppose. Though I was kinda talking about laws that actually affect peoples lives.




Monday blues.I hear ya on that one.

Measure Man
07-14-2014, 06:53 PM
I'd assume that the people who live in the town/county who vote for the representatives find it in their best interest. Kind of the point of local governments. Same reason that banning smoking in public in Berkely, CA is ok. That's what the people wanted. I have the choice to not visit or live in Berkely. The community feels that it is in their best interest not to have people smoking around them. Is it in their best interest? Probably not.

By the way...came back to live in the same town. A recent election (about 2 years ago) got rid of the "dry town" laws. The people who live there now and vote for the local laws voted to overturn it. It's now in the best interest of the town to sell alcohol.



Damn...you are a thrifty one if you can account for $30 you spent, or didn't spend, a year ago.


Actually, just the opposite. I wouldn't say I account for the same $30...but I'm fortunate in the my spending is not dictated by whether or not I have an extra $30. If I wanted something that costs $30 when I got back to California...I'd buy it, whether or not I spent $30 in Tennessee. If I didn't want it, I wouldn't buy it. There is nothing I bought that I would not have if I'd had 30 less dollars when returning.

So...my point is having NOT spent $30 in Tennessee that day had no impact on any purchases I made back in California...therefore, that $30 is still in my bank account.


It does indeed, I suppose. Though I was kinda talking about laws that actually affect peoples lives.

I would say that this example is more of a minor irritant, yes. I'm sure also that same-sex marriage laws affect people's lives and are based on religion...though it seems they are rapidly disappearing. IMO, they are not in our best interests.


I hear ya on that one.

sandsjames
07-14-2014, 06:55 PM
I'm sure also that same-sex marriage laws affect people's lives and are based on religion...though it seems they are rapidly disappearing. IMO, they are not in our best interests.

I'll agree with this. Not the same-sex marriage thing. Just that there are any laws about marriage between consenting adults and that the government is involved at all, period.

garhkal
07-14-2014, 08:56 PM
Don't worry. There are plenty of military members take the oath just as seriously as the politicians. The only difference is that we keep voting in the politicians who don't take it seriously.

Which is why i follow the mantra, of if you voted for them, live with your actions.
And if you don't vote, you can't complain!

As to the OP's comments. While i agree, the supreme court did rule that our personal beliefs take a back burner to military requirement, that was before imo, the govt was pushing all sorts of social experiments ON the military. I am not sure if they would rule the same, should it be revisited now.

efmbman
07-14-2014, 10:33 PM
I am not sure if they would rule the same, should it be revisited now.

Based on some of the rulings that have come down from the current SCOTUS, I wouldn't be so sure.

Stalwart
07-18-2014, 12:39 AM
and Never forget. All of our Nation's wars have been won by drinkers and smokers.

As well as non-drinkers and non-smokers. One of my former platoon mates from the Marine Corps, awarded a Silver Star for heroism in Iraq, just married his long-time partner (same sex) ... he probably contributed to that war too.

Stalwart
07-18-2014, 01:39 AM
As to the OP's comments. While i agree, the supreme court did rule that our personal beliefs take a back burner to military requirement, that was before imo, the govt was pushing all sorts of social experiments ON the military. I am not sure if they would rule the same, should it be revisited now.

Actually, 2 of the 3 rulings I posted were made during the desegregation of the Armed Forces, not exactly widely accepted and referred to as 'social experimentation' in that day and age too.

This is for the Navy, but each branch has a separate section with identical wording in Title 10. Title 10 U.S. Code ยง 5947 (Requirement of exemplary conduct): "All commanding officers and others in authority in the naval service are required to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination; to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their command; to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral practices, and to correct, according to the laws and regulations of the Navy, all persons who are guilty of them; and to take all necessary and proper measures, under the laws, regulations, and customs of the naval service, to promote and safeguard the morale, the physical well-being, and the general welfare of the officers and enlisted persons under their command or charge.

The emphasis I place on the "immoral conduct" clause is intentional, since our civilian leadership has determined, by law what is immoral for military members and what isn't. At that point, my personal code of morality cannot be pushed onto my subordinates ... like it or not. I may find premarital sex immoral, I can't punish or demean those who do it; same for smoking or drinking, homosexuality, interracial marriage or gambling. If we find ourselves in a crisis of conscience we have some decisions to make. For example, USMC Capt Charles Johnston who in Lebanon 1983 stopped a convoy of Israeli tanks ... (just for history's sake ... he did it with a pistol):

NY TIMES: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/03/world/a-marine-pistol-drawn-stops-3-israeli-tanks.html

In 1992 he resigned his commission after 14 years of service in protest over the establishment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He at least had the strength of conviction to put his money where his mouth was rather than slug through 6 years of service for his pension ... agree or not with his decision, I admire his conviction.

An interesting article from 2012 about officers (generals) resigning in protest over poor political leadership:

LOWY INTERPRETER: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2012/01/31/Should-generals-resign-in-protest.aspx?COLLCC=4025032952&

This one from earlier this year:

NY POST: http://nypost.com/2014/06/05/silence-of-the-generals-should-someone-resign/

I will say, a general resigning in protest, or any other senior who has already secured their pension (financial safety net) is not as stinging as a SSgt or CPO who does not reenlist or an O3 or O4 who resigns short of their pension out of a conflict of conscience, but SSgt Jones from the 101st Airborne does not get the same press as a very senior officer who resigns.

I think one hand, you have the duly and lawfully empowered civilian leadership making a policy decision that the military is both lawfully and duty bound to follow. At the point the policy is enacted, our personal objections are subordinated to our oath -- even if these were not the circumstances under which we originally took that oath.

Rainmaker
07-18-2014, 02:57 AM
As well as non-drinkers and non-smokers. One of my former platoon mates from the Marine Corps, awarded a Silver Star for heroism in Iraq, just married his long-time partner (same sex) ... he probably contributed to that war too.

Point taken. and I guess that settles once and for all then. after all Sgt York was a teatotaler. By the way, Did we really win anything? cause it don't feel like it from where I'm sittin.

Stalwart
07-18-2014, 03:04 AM
Point taken. and I guess that settles once and for all then. after all Sgt York was a teatotaler. By the way, Did we really win anything? cause it don't feel like it from where I'm sittin.

I don't know if we can yet say we won, lost or fought to a draw in Iraq (I don't think it is over).

I know on that day, that Marine won the engagement and saved several lives.

Rainmaker
07-18-2014, 03:13 AM
I don't know if we can yet say we won, lost or fought to a draw in Iraq (I don't think it is over).

I know on that day, that Marine won the engagement and saved several lives.

Don't doubt it. Heroism and immorality are not always mutually exclusive things. Plenty of people have social disorders. But, usually the government doesn't turn them into celebratory events. Maybe they'll make a movie about it focusing most of the attention on his lifestyle choice of course. and Usually when you win something. you know, which is why you need a clear attainable objective.

Stalwart
07-18-2014, 06:11 AM
Don't doubt it. Heroism and immorality are not always mutually exclusive things. Plenty of people have social disorders.

Fair enough. I will say, that the guy is my friend, we served in combat together & I was pretty aware of his personal lifestyle choice when we did, it is nearly impossible to be on a team in those conditions for extended periods of time and not know about your teammates. 15 or so years ago I would have agreed with your assessments of what is immoral and not; eventually after see up close and personal the effects of extreme intolerance and the atrocities that man can inflict on man I have gotten a more tolerant of people and their decisions. You don't have to think like I do to be a good person & we all make our own peace with things in that respect.

As I have said, I am LDS and the more extreme LDS folks I know would classify someone drinking coffee or smoking as immoral ... I don't think like that.


But, usually the government doesn't turn them into celebratory events. Maybe they'll make a movie about it focusing most of the attention on his lifestyle choice of course.

Probably not, he is very much the quiet professional.


and Usually when you win something. you know, which is why you need a clear attainable objective.

I was there that day, and that day ... at least tactically ... we won. At the operational or strategic level I won't argue with you ... but tactically we won.

garhkal
07-18-2014, 08:02 AM
I think one hand, you have the duly and lawfully empowered civilian leadership making a policy decision that the military is both lawfully and duty bound to follow. At the point the policy is enacted, our personal objections are subordinated to our oath -- even if these were not the circumstances under which we originally took that oath.

In which case, when will the UCMJ article on sodomy be removed?

Stalwart
07-18-2014, 09:02 AM
In which case, when will the UCMJ article on sodomy be removed?

2013 via PL 113-66 (National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014)

It wasn't removed but the title of the article was changed to "Forcible sodomy; bestiality" and applies to same sex and opposite sex cases. Mostly it remains as a mitigating offense to rape/sexual assault.

(a) Forcible Sodomy.โ€” Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex by force or without the consent of the other person is guilty of forcible sodomy and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Bestiality.โ€” Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with an animal is guilty of bestiality and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Scope of Offenses.โ€” Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete an offense under subsection (a) or (b).

socal1200r
07-18-2014, 12:44 PM
Here's another example of personal beliefs conflicting with what DoD is doing:

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/manning-to-begin-gender-treatment-1.294005

IMO, someone should do the world a favor and put a bullet in this guy...

sandsjames
07-18-2014, 12:49 PM
Here's another example of personal beliefs conflicting with what DoD is doing:

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/manning-to-begin-gender-treatment-1.294005

IMO, someone should do the world a favor and put a bullet in this guy...

Love how the article actually uses the term "she".

Has anyone thought of showing up to work in the blues skirt to see if anybody says anything about it? I'd do it on PT Test day to ensure I only had to do a couple pushups.

garhkal
07-18-2014, 07:51 PM
Here's another example of personal beliefs conflicting with what DoD is doing:

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/manning-to-begin-gender-treatment-1.294005

IMO, someone should do the world a favor and put a bullet in this guy...


I just made a new thread for that manning issue.

Measure Man
07-18-2014, 08:16 PM
Here's another example of personal beliefs conflicting with what DoD is doing:

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/manning-to-begin-gender-treatment-1.294005

IMO, someone should do the world a favor and put a bullet in this guy...

I pretty much agree. Maybe not the bullet thing...but throw him in a dark cell and quit talking about him. I could not care less about his emotional well-being and the progress of his gender change.

The only part of the article I found remotely interesting was this:


"It is common knowledge that the federal prison system cannot guarantee the safety and security of Chelsea in the way that the military prison system can."

This was not common knowledge to me. I was always under the impression that Leavenworth was pretty much like any other federal prison...with murderers, rapists, predators, scammers, gangbangers, etc.

If it is indeed safer...why? And why don't they make the other prisons safer? I believe people should be sentenced and pay for their crimes, but I don't think being exploited, raped, beaten, killed by other prisoners should be part of that sentence.

Rainmaker
07-19-2014, 03:58 AM
Fair enough. I will say, that the guy is my friend, we served in combat together & I was pretty aware of his personal lifestyle choice when we did, it is nearly impossible to be on a team in those conditions for extended periods of time and not know about your teammates. 15 or so years ago I would have agreed with your assessments of what is immoral and not; eventually after see up close and personal the effects of extreme intolerance and the atrocities that man can inflict on man I have gotten a more tolerant of people and their decisions. You don't have to think like I do to be a good person & we all make our own peace with things in that respect.

As I have said, I am LDS and the more extreme LDS folks I know would classify someone drinking coffee or smoking as immoral ... I don't think like that.



Probably not, he is very much the quiet professional.



I was there that day, and that day ... at least tactically ... we won. At the operational or strategic level I won't argue with you ... but tactically we won.

Interesting. While not a mormon himself. on the surface it does seem quite conservative.industrious family/community oriented people. Works over faith and all. But,Rainmaker actually finds the ideas in the mormon religion to be quite progressive when you think about it. would you agree? As man is. God once was. NomSayin? . Although Rainmaker voted for Mick E. Mouse and will continue to, until a viable alternative to the plutocracy arrives. Mitt would've been an improvement over this shit-show we have now.