Should gays and lesbians be allowed to serve openly?

[Bloomfield]

I don't, though, think people should serve because I believe all war is evil at all times.

A consequence of this is that the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto,
who smuggled in arms from the Polish underground, organized,
and then fought in an organized and determined manner (waged war against) the Nazis who were trucking them and their kids off to
the death camps, did something evil. That's very hard to
swallow.

I believe that Gandhi, by the way, said that they
would have done better to commit mass suicide.
I think more jews should have fought.

My chief difficulty with pacifism is that it leads to war.

The problem here is that in some instances pacifism may lead to war, while the opposite of pacifism leads to war almost all the time. Also, universal pacificism never leads to war.

The sentiments you express were the chief cause of
WWII, because England and the League of Nations
refused to stand up to German re-armament until
it was too late, insisting that war is evil under all
circumstances. Pacifism was chiefly responsible for
the most horrible war in human history, one that
was unnecessary, because the German high command
made it plain repeatedly that they would remove Hitler if only
the Brits would say that they would fight (the High Command feared
he would lead Germany into a ruinous war, but finally
concluded that nobody would fight back).

"chief" cause is really pushing it. I don't think what you say about German high command is accurate, nor do I believe that there was a sufficiently solid opposition to Hitler in the German military in 1937. For what it's worth, Hitler wanted to go to war in 1937. A non-appeasement strategy on the side of the British would therefore have brought the war on sooner, but would not have prevented it. Would it have been less horrific? Who can tell.

I am also not convinced that Chamberlain is that good an example of a pacifist. The British had a strong military, increased it in response to the German thread etc etc. The thought behind Munich was not to avoid all war, but to avoid unnecessary war (which is not a pacifist position). I think everyone agrees that Chamberlain got it wrong (mistaking a necessary war for an unnecessary one), because he failed to perceive that Hitler would not be appeased. But that vitiates only the application of the rule, not the rule itself, and it has little or nothing to do with pacifism.

[jim stone]

I don't, though, think people should serve because I believe all war is evil at all times.

A consequence of this is that the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto,
who smuggled in arms from the Polish underground, organized,
and then fought in an organized and determined manner (waged war against) the Nazis who were trucking them and their kids off to
the death camps, did something evil. That's very hard to
swallow.

I believe that Gandhi, by the way, said that they
would have done better to commit mass suicide.
I think more jews should have fought.

My chief difficulty with pacifism is that it leads to war.

The problem here is that in some instances pacifism may lead to war, while the opposite of pacifism leads to war almost all the time. Also, universal pacificism never leads to war.

The sentiments you express were the chief cause of
WWII, because England and the League of Nations
refused to stand up to German re-armament until
it was too late, insisting that war is evil under all
circumstances. Pacifism was chiefly responsible for
the most horrible war in human history, one that
was unnecessary, because the German high command
made it plain repeatedly that they would remove Hitler if only
the Brits would say that they would fight (the High Command feared
he would lead Germany into a ruinous war, but finally
concluded that nobody would fight back).

"chief" cause is really pushing it. I don't think what you say about German high command is accurate, nor do I believe that there was a sufficiently solid opposition to Hitler in the German military in 1937. For what it's worth, Hitler wanted to go to war in 1937. A non-appeasement strategy on the side of the British would therefore have brought the war on sooner, but would not have prevented it. Would it have been less horrific? Who can tell.

I am also not convinced that Chamberlain is that good an example of a pacifist. The British had a strong military, increased it in response to the German thread etc etc. The thought behind Munich was not to avoid all war, but to avoid unnecessary war (which is not a pacifist position). I think everyone agrees that Chamberlain got it wrong (mistaking a necessary war for an unnecessary one), because he failed to perceive that Hitler would not be appeased. But that vitiates only the application of the rule, not the rule itself, and it has little or nothing to do with pacifism.

Thanks for the clarifications. I don't know what the opposite of
pacifism would be, but the negation is the view that war is
morally permissible under some circumstances, for instance,
self defense. That doesn't lead to war under all circumstances,
anyway, though obviously it has its dangers. Personally
I think the willingness to fight is essential to avoiding war,
When major powers
really are unwilling to fight or draw lines, the sharks
in the water grow bolder and the risk of war increases.

I don't have now the time or the ability to do the history.
I agree that Chamberlain wasn't a pacifist--for the reason
you give, however it's plain that pacifist sentiment was
very strong in England, France, and the USA after
WWI--at least in the sense that people were determined
to avoid another war, felt that civilized nations had to
find another way, etc. Chamberlain was acting
like a pacifist and out of sentiments that motivate
pacifism, even if he wasn't one.

I believe it is Churchill in 'The Gathering Storm' and
also maybe Shirer relate how the German High command
sent two secret emissaries to England, saying they would
remove Hitler if England would say it would fight
if Germany invaded another country. On both occasions
Britain responded that there had to be a better
way for civilized nations to work out their differences
than to threaten war. I believe it is Churchill who
relates that on one occasion the High Command decided
to go ahead on their own, troops were moved close
to Hitlers headquarters, a coup was timed for that
afternoon, and then Chamberlain flew in on another
mission of appeasement. 'Well, the game is working'
the generals said, and called it off. Sorry, I can't
now give you the dates. No time for the books.

Churchill calls WWII 'the unnecessary war'--his view
was that if Hitler and German re-armament were
confronted forcefully and early, the war wouldn't have
happened. Instead the Brits began sinking their
own battleships, so as to be less of a threat to
Germany. While Germany was re-arming,
the Brits were destroying their armaments,
so that Germany would have no reason to
rearm. War was unthinkable, too terrible
and evil to contemplate. If you wish not to call this 'pacifism,'
I will not oppose you.

Perhaps this history is mistaken.

[Bloomfield]

I don't have now the time or the ability to do the history.
I agree that Chamberlain wasn't a pacifist--for the reason
you give, however it's plain that pacifist sentiment was
very strong in England, France, and the USA after
WWI--at least in the sense that people were determined
to avoid another war, felt that civilized nations had to
find another way, etc. Chamberlain was acting
like a pacifist and out of sentiments that motivate
pacifism, even if he wasn't one.

I believe it is Churchill in 'The Gathering Storm' and
also maybe Shirer relate how the German High command
sent two secret emissaries to England, saying they would
remove Hitler if England would say it would fight
if Germany invaded another country. On both occasions
Britain responded that there had to be a better
way for civilized nations to work out their differences
than to threaten war. I believe it is Churchill who
relates that on one occasion the High Command decided
to go ahead on their own, troops were moved close
to Hitlers headquarters, a coup was timed for that
afternoon, and then Chamberlain arrived on another
mission of appeasement. 'Well, Hitler's game is working'
the generals said, and called it off. Sorry, I can't
now give you the dates. No time for the books.

Churchill calls WWII 'the unnecessary war'--his view
was that if Hitler and German re-armament were
confronted forcefully and early, it wouldn't have
happened. Instead the Brits began sinking their
own battleships, so as to be less of a threat to
Germany. While Germany was re-arming,
the Brits were destroying their armaments,
so that Germany would have no reason to
rearm. War was unthinkable, too terrible
and evil to contemplate. If you wish not to call this 'pacifism,'
I will not oppose you.

Perhaps this history is mistaken.

Thanks for this. Very interesting. I'll go look that up in Churchill.

I love reading Churchill on history, btw. There is a wonderful little book that came out a few years ago, called "The Great Republic," which consists of passages from The History Of the English-Speaking Peoples that make up a history of the USA. Great stuff, and a good balance to some of the American history writing, which (for example) tends to turn George III into a blathering idiot (which he was not, at that point anyway) and the English Empire into blood-thirsty oppressors (which they weren't either).

[I.D.10-t]

Looking at the UCMJ there are other sex acts that can cause military prison time between “heterosexuals” rather than just being excused from military service (although being a homosexuals does not mean that you are currently having sex). I think that the military needs to look into whether what people are doing in the bedroom is something that they should be concerned with.


Avanutria

…if they knew they would have to work with Jew-phobic, high-stressed people with guns. :/ I know I wouldn't want to be in that position, if it were me.

What we need to do first is get rid of the homophobia. Then the 'permission' aspect will be lessened.

Do you think that the military is composed with a large number of trigger happy bigots?

Seems to me that the majority of the people in the military are younger people, and that when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage and other “gay right” issues that younger people were more open about than older people.

P.S. I do not care if people are straight, gay, or other, it affects me less than rules that can be turned into McCarthy witch hunts.

[jim stone]

My argument is fallacious in this way.
Supposing for argument's sake that lots of people
becoming pacifists increases the risk of war, short
of everybody, it doesn't follow that pacifism is
false--it may still be true that war is under every
circumstance evil. It's just a truth that one
doesn't want many, but not all, people to believe.

Churchill also points to the occupation of the Rhineland
as a moment when Hitler could have been
destroyed politically, if France had fought.

Thanks for the conversation.

[Bloomfield]

My argument is fallacious in this way.
Supposing for argument's sake that lots of people
becoming pacifists increases the risk of war, short
of everybody, it doesn't follow that pacifism is
false--it may still be true that war is under every
circumstance evil. It's just a truth that one
doesn't want many, but not all, people to believe.

That's what I meant by "universal pacifism never leads to war."

Part of the problem is of course that no one is ever for war. Everyone abhors it, almost by definition. The real variance is in how quick people are willing to pay the moral and physical price of war. No one seriously doubts that defeating Nazi Germany was worth the price of war. People disagree about whether replacing a tyrannical ruler in the Near East is worth the price of war, etc. etc.

The moral argument for pacifism then is: Nothing is ever worth the price of war, even if it means being overrun and killed by attackers. That is the argument that it is (morally) preferable to die than to kill, transposed to the level of societies and nations. The only reason it could be preferable to die than to kill is if killing causes one more harm morally/spiritually than dying (which is plausible if you think about it). The interesting point then is to consider that the choice between being a perpetrator or a victim is thrust upon us in the face of aggression.

Kant's "Of Eternal Peace" deals with this from the point of view of the categorical imperative (another way in which personal morality is transposed to the leve of societies and nations), and make a very robust argument that only defensive wars (strictly defined) are morally permissible, and that this position will lead to the same outcome as universal pacifism (with less of a risk of anihalition of the pacifists in the process). Very good read, and very current.

[TelegramSam]

The primary cause of WWI (and every other war on the planet) is human stupidity.

[rh]

Oh.... I thought this was a question about the Communion service.

i thought it was a question about Cracker Barrel.

[DCrom]

There's a quote that I like to use to illustrate why I think pacifism has always, historically, failed catastrophically: "All that is necessary to ensure the victory of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Though I've seen many claims otherwise, I do not believe that there has been a single case in all of documented human history where pacifism has worked except when the pacifists were totally isolated from all other humans (a couple of the polynesian islands - certainly not all of them, since many polynesians were *very* warlike).

I believe the ability to defend myself and my loved ones is an absolute moral right. By extension, I believe the same for my society.

[jim stone]

My argument is fallacious in this way.
Supposing for argument's sake that lots of people
becoming pacifists increases the risk of war, short
of everybody, it doesn't follow that pacifism is
false--it may still be true that war is under every
circumstance evil. It's just a truth that one
doesn't want many, but not all, people to believe.

That's what I meant by "universal pacifism never leads to war."

Part of the problem is of course that no one is ever for war. Everyone abhors it, almost by definition. The real variance is in how quick people are willing to pay the moral and physical price of war. No one seriously doubts that defeating Nazi Germany was worth the price of war. People disagree about whether replacing a tyrannical ruler in the Near East is worth the price of war, etc. etc.

The moral argument for pacifism then is: Nothing is ever worth the price of war, even if it means being overrun and killed by attackers. That is the argument that it is (morally) preferable to die than to kill, transposed to the level of societies and nations. The only reason it could be preferable to die than to kill is if killing causes one more harm morally/spiritually than dying (which is plausible if you think about it). The interesting point then is to consider that the choice between being a perpetrator or a victim is thrust upon us in the face of aggression.

Kant's "Of Eternal Peace" deals with this from the point of view of the categorical imperative (another way in which personal morality is transposed to the leve of societies and nations), and make a very robust argument that only defensive wars (strictly defined) are morally permissible, and that this position will lead to the same outcome as universal pacifism (with less of a risk of anihalition of the pacifists in the process). Very good read, and very current.

I've thought about this in the context of Buddhism, which
tends to teach that there can be no just war. Certainly
it is consistent with the Buddha's teaching that it is better
for me to die than it is for
me to kill, even defending myself or others. The precept against killing makes no exception for
self-defense, and, of course, if one accepts the doctrine
of karma, the consequences of killing intentionally in
self defense are far worse than those of being killed,
which would have pretty good consequences, karmically,
in that it would spend some bad karma and lead to
a better rebirth.

This applies without difficulty to monastics, I think,
but there are difficulties for lay people. In the Warsaw
ghetto, even if it's in my interest morally (and karmically)
to be killed rather than fight in self defense, I have a duty to
my children, my aged parents, and so on to defend them.
The choice for my children isn't whether to die or to fight;
they can't fight. Nor are they karmically afflicted by
what I do to defend them, for they don't do it. Even if
killing to defend them does me more harm than good,
my duty to them requires me to sacrifice my good
for theirs. It is these special obligations that we have,
I think, that help make wars of self-defense worth
the cost, or at least, required by justice--unless
we wish to go so far as to say that we have no
duty to our children to use force as a last resort to defend them
against being murdered.

The Indian Emperor Asoka, by the way, embraced
Buddhism, repented sincerely for the wars
he had fought, built roads, hospitals, preached
religious tolerance. After his death (232BC ?), his
kingdom was vigorously attacked by neighbors,
and some scholars say that his pacifism attracted
the sharks. What a world.

[Wormdiet]

I love reading Churchill on history, btw. There is a wonderful little book that came out a few years ago, called "The Great Republic," which consists of passages from The History Of the English-Speaking Peoples that make up a history of the USA. Great stuff, and a good balance to some of the American history writing, which (for example) tends to turn George III into a blathering idiot (which he was not, at that point anyway) and the English Empire into blood-thirsty oppressors (which they weren't either).

That's an interesting comment on imperialism. I'm teaching world history here in God's COuntry (AKA North Carolina). Two days ago we discussed how the British government banned the Indian practice of Sati because it was "barbaric." Then today we discussed the Opium War.

I'm sure many of you are aware of this, but the title movie "The Madness of King George" does not include his roman numeral (IE "George III.") Why? Because it was feared that American audiences would assume the "III" meant the movie was a sequel, and therefore would be less likely to see it.

[Bloomfield]

I love reading Churchill on history, btw. There is a wonderful little book that came out a few years ago, called "The Great Republic," which consists of passages from The History Of the English-Speaking Peoples that make up a history of the USA. Great stuff, and a good balance to some of the American history writing, which (for example) tends to turn George III into a blathering idiot (which he was not, at that point anyway) and the English Empire into blood-thirsty oppressors (which they weren't either).

That's an interesting comment on imperialism. I'm teaching world history here in God's COuntry (AKA North Carolina). Two days ago we discussed how the British government banned the Indian practice of Sati because it was "barbaric." Then today we discussed the Opium War.

Are you going to discuss the Federal Government surpressing Peyote, too?

I didn't mean to defend the English crown or make them out as nice guys. But overall they took a foolish rather than vicious approach in the Colonies. George III was mostly guided by the principle that it was his bloody colonies, he ought to be ruling them. Which would have been the case hadn't the Crown been so distracted for the from 1700 to 1760 or there abouts, leaving the colonies space to do their own thing for so long they got used to it.

I hadn't heard that about the Madness of King George III. Funny!

[jim stone]

Just read that Jimmy Driftwood wrote the words
to The Battle of New Orlean (in 1814 we took
a little trip....) to sing to his public school students
to teach them history. Maybe you can
do something about the Opium War.

[TelegramSam]

there's already a song about the opium war:

http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/M/marcyp ... lyrics.htm

[spittin_in_the_wind]

As to 'don't ask, don't tell,' if you really want to discuss it,
you might consider what the best case/argument is for
the present policy--then discuss THAT. You are unlikely
to really have an illuminating conversation otherwise.

Would you care to illuminate us, Jim?
(because I really can't think of a best case/argument for the present policy, other than the risk of unlawful assault on homosexuals by other military personnel)

Robin