On Don't Ask Don't Tell

This is a hot button issue lately and I suppose begs a post.

There certainly seems no reason to me to keep DADT in place in to in any way differentiate between homosexual soldiers and straight ones (outside of the mundane). Any rule that is aimed at homosexual soldiers is by definition discriminatory. There simply does not appear a valid reason for keeping DADT or an even more restrictive rule in place. There is also evidence from other countries that homosexuals serving openly in the military does not adversely affect morale or effectiveness.

DADT is by definition discriminatory. Countries that have opened the ranks are not adversely affected. What reasons remain for keeping any restrictive rules on military personnel that happen to be homosexual?

Many in the military have said there will be huge problems for those currently serving if openly homosexual soldiers are allowed to serve. This is a very important argument. We cannot simply ignore the reservations, emotions, and worries and the thousands (if not millions?) of those currently serving. I do not believe, however, that it should have any bearing on whether homosexuals should serve or not. Where it DOES matter is how the inclusion of homosexual soldiers is put into effect--the logistics of an integrated military.

The best analogy I can think of for this issue is the segregation and later integration of blacks in the military. There were many similar arguments for maintaining a segregated military. At the end of the day, however, it simply was not the right thing to do. The white-male military had to "deal with it" and "get over it." It is in this "dealing" and "getting over" that I think is the most delicate part of the process and requires the most care in addressing the opinions of those currently serving.

My Personal Introduction to Just War Theory

This semester I'm taking a course called "Religion, Violence, and Conflict." I figured it'd be a great chance to get a good foundation in Just War theory and pacifism. Personally, I've been a pacifist since discovering the idea via Leo Tolstoy as well as an excellent write up by a blogger at Cramer Comments. There is always something not-quite-right about pacifism though. When faced with a situation of self defense (or even worse, defense of a loved one), pacifism always seems against nature. I still believe, however, that Christ was explicit in what we SHOULD do. Whether we have the faith to do it is a different story.

But Just War theory is approached from a different perspective. It isn't as individually focused but is more socially focused. How should societies (re: nations) react to aggression, belligerence, human rights violations, etc. It's a bit more complicated when viewed on a grander scale.

So far I've read a very good (and thorough!) book by Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars. It's quite a read, but by the end gives as good an overview as one could imagine. I've moved on to Love and Justice by Reinhold Niebuhr to focus on Just War arguments during WW2 and beyond. My initial thesis was that WW2 led to a revision of Just War theory making it easier to go to war. Because I believe WW2 to be an exception and not a rule, this would have made theory LESS just instead of MORE just. The jury is still out on it though.

A different course I may take is to look at what other concepts are necessary to arrive at a jus ad bellum and jus in bello. What are the sine quibus non for Just War that may not pop into our heads as easily as aggressor identification and combatant/non-combatant status?

Three points have popped out at me and will most likely form the basis for my paper.

1) A well trained military is needed for a just war. Not only in technical aspects such as aiming (good aim, after all, could be the difference between hitting a combatant or a child), but also moral training in all the points that Walzer brings up. Just War theory is inherently casuist in nature--rules are made only after the fact and are fluid. Yet studying the historical cases is what ethicists do and these inform decisions for new cases. A soldier in the field is often expected to make a moral decision in a matter of moments. This can't happen in a vacuum. Moral training is necessary as well as all the other military training.

2) An open, national conversation must take place. This is most obvious in the time leading up to war (jus ad bellum), but is also important if any of the means used in the conflict become controversial (jus in bello). The decision to go to war cannot be made solely by politicians or military leaders. The entire public must be included in the discussion. I also feel that voluntary enlistment is the only way to go. If the case can't be made convincingly enough to raise a military voluntarily, then the case for war may not be just.

3) An accurate and free press. The conversation above cannot take place if there is not a free and high quality press. Conversation is based on facts as well as feelings and faith. If the facts are wrong, the conclusion may be wrong. The most blatant (and recent) example of this is the current war in Iraq. If the conversation was based upon Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and affiliations with Al Qaeda, then the conclusion could be ill-founded. If the conversation were based on truth, we may have arrived at a different decision.

There is a lot more to be said about all three of these, but that's why it'll be a 20 page paper.

Other books on my to-read list:

When War is Unjust

Just War Revisited

What Are They Saying About Peace and War?

And a bunch of journal articles I haven't gotten to yet. . .

Reclaiming Christian: On Anne Rice and Identity

Recently Anne Rice announced she's quitting Christianity. While I can't find the entirety of her statement, here is what the news included:

"In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. . .. In the name of ... Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."

I think it's obvious that Rice is working with a pretty inaccurate definition of "Christian." By what she says she obviously still clings to Christ and wants to lead a Christ-like life. Perhaps renouncing institutional religion or Roman Catholicism may have been more accurate, but there is still an interesting point to be made about "Christian."

The question "What is a Christian?" would get numerous responses from numerous people. Same with "Who is a Christian?" or "How can I tell if someone is a Christian?" So who defines "Christian"? Who decides who defines it? I would imagine the answer would be "society" but that simply regresses to "Who is society?" At the end, what we are dealing with is identity.

Sure, we like to think that we provide our own identity. We decide who we are. Yet there is no doubt that society/culture has a huge influence on determining who we are. From women being told they'll never be President to Nemo being told he can't do something because of his "lucky" fin, what people tell us about us influences what we think of ourselves.

So is Rice reacting in some way to what society/culture is telling her a Christian is? I say yes. Society/culture over the last several decades has defined "Christian" as the religious right. This is mainly imposed upon us through the media, but it also plays out in churches, work, and families. It's been a great PR battle that conservative Christians have won. In the overwhelming majority of instances when "Christian" is used in the media or in conversation, the basic image we get is of the conservative Christian. I doubt many people would think of Dorothee Soelle, Martin Luther King Jr., or St. Francis.

But the religious left is also to blame for this narrow definition of "Christian." Liberal Christians have done just what Rice has done--abandoned the Christian identity. If asked "Are you Christian?" they may reply with "Well I'm spiritual but not religious" or "Well. . . yes, but I'm not THAT kind of Christian." There's been a sense of shame involved in admitting being a Christian for many liberal Christians. This means that the only voice available to balance out the image that the religious right is offering is silent. There is no group to counteract the predominant image of Christian identity.

That is why liberal Christians must reclaim "Christian." The goal is not to shift the Christian identity to the left so that it excludes the right. That would be just as inaccurate and unfair as the status quo. What is desired is a broadening of Christian identity so that it includes the right AND left and everyone in between.

Liberal Christians must answer the question with pride: "Yes, I am a Christian." No qualifiers. No shame. If the conversation continues, they can feel free to add "but I am for birth control use" or "I'm against institutional violence of any kind" or "I'm for taxing the richer half of society in order to provide for the poor."

Reform will never come from outside of the Church. Leaving "Christianity" and then expecting it to somehow "miss" you and become more inclusive for you will never happen. Reclaiming "Christian" and reforming from inside the Church WILL work. This has been done and is being done now. And my same advice goes to conservatives who feel the Church is becoming too liberal--don't leave. We won't miss you. Stay and claim "Christian."