Mike Hudack

Perhaps because the political process has found abortion to be somehow different from the death penalty, killing in war and other similar issues. Note that I say “killing” and not “murder”. There is a distinction, assuming that your war is morally just. Again, we have systems in place to make that determination.

Odds are that the restrictions on the funding of abortion won’t make it into the final bill. Rather than speaking of this as a fait accompli, why don’t you make some phone calls to your elected representatives to ensure a final bill that meets your moral standards, instead of someone else’s?

Army Chief Concerned for Muslim Troops - NYTimes.com

This is progress. In ‘41 we would have kicked them all out of the Army. In ‘09 we talk about preserving our diversity. This is progress.

(via mikehudack)

Does it still count as progress if it’s only civilians discussing kicking them out and not the military establishment? Because I’ve read more than a few pieces across the web where citizens of the United States are calling for all members of a specific religion to be barred from serving in the military of a country whose bill of rights begins with a clause allowing freedom of religion. I applaud the official stance as progress, but don’t wonder if we’re backsliding where it really matters: the populace. I don’t find it surprising at all that there’s a perception we’re fighting a holy war when our own citizens feel that one’s religion - despite the very foundations of our country being against this sort of thought - should qualify a person for either positive or negative special treatment.

Also, not to bring a tangent into the discussion, but I find it…interesting…that they discuss protecting “our Muslim soldiers” from backlash while simultaneously discharging gay soldiers. Religion trumps humanity again, it seems.

There are a couple separate issues you’ve brought up here.

In regards to whether it’s “progress” when the military is more tolerant than the populace at large, the answer is yes. There will always be bigots in the population at large. That’s unavoidable. But the military has historically been more tolerant than the public at large ever since Truman integrated the military. The military has actually accelerated the spread of tolerance in American society by forcing whites and blacks to serve next to each other in foxholes in Korea and Vietnam.

At this juncture gays in the military is a political issue (just as integrated units was a political issue). Truman integrated the military. Obama or another president needs to do the same with gays. There are surely intolerant people in the military, but the institution at large is not intolerant — the institution’s reaction to this shooting should be sufficient evidence of that fact. But the military’s hands are veritably tied by political policy. We have a civilian controlled military. Untie the military’s hands and allow them to be more tolerant… and they will be.