Question of the Week - May 30, 2010

Is it unpatriotic to boo/heckle the president?

Why is the Military Allowed to Be Anti-Gay?

It looks like the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for military service may be repealed soon. On Thursday, congress voted for an amendment that would end the DADT policy. DADT does not allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. I know there are many Americans who are anti-gay or homophobic, so obviously it would not be expected to hear much outrage from a large percentage of Americans, and actually you would expect support of DADT. But wouldn't you expect the government to to recognize blatant discriminatory actions, especially given our past?

Although, it can be said that the government is just being representative of the people, because it seems that democrats are against DADT, and the republicans are for it. Most of the opposition to gays serving in the military, obviously comes from conservatives, but it really comes from a place of homophobia and a non-understanding of homosexuality. It is anyone's right to feel that homosexuality is immoral, and the US is largely Christian, so it's understandable that many people would feel that way since this concept is taught in churches. But the Christian laws do not govern this country, or at least they should not, because what is considered immoral by Christianity is not considered immoral by everyone. Immorality should be judged by whether an action intentionally hurts someone, and being gay obviously does not fall in this category. But that is really besides the point, because how being gay affects whether these people can serve in the military is what should be examined.

How does being gay affects anyone's ability to strategize, fire a weapon, or show compassion for others? It doesn't, and I think the military realizes this, because otherwise they would be actively conducting investigations to determine whether people enlisted in the military are gay. But they do not, so why even have the law at all? I guess congress has realized this, but the policy still has to go through more barriers before being repealed. According to Reuters.com, "...repeal also would require certification from Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, that the new law would not have a negative impact on readiness, unit cohesion, recruitment and troop retention." Any one of these things could allow the discrimination to continue, which is absurb, since none of these factors would allow for discrimination in any other work environment. Knowing that, it should hopefully be an easy repeal. If people want to fight and defend their country, they should be allowed to without worrying about discrimination.

Does it make sense to take away freedom, in the name of freedom?

Did the terrorists win when we implemented the Patriot Act? Americans' freedoms were greatly affected, all in the name of security. In the name of fear. We are surrendering the things that make this country the best country in the world. And besides the death of America, isn't that what the terrorists want? If they affect our daily lives where our freedoms are the not same, and our privacy is not the same, then maybe they are winning the battle. The Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Police will soon have the right to ask for proof of citizenship, and if you do not have it you can be considered an illegal immigrant. The security at some airports are allowed to do revealing full body scans, which we found out recently are much more revealing that we were led to believe after a TSA employee attacked his colleagues after they made fun of how endowed he is. The government wanted the right to take away citizenship rights for suspected terrorists. It has become a common occurrence lately that freedoms are taken away in order to make us safer. Religious extremists are here to stay, so does that mean some of our freedoms are gone for good? A war on terror may keep the terrorists down, and somewhat control their power, but it won't eliminate them. So should we live in a police state for the rest of our days, where the government apparently has the right to take away any freedoms and privacies that they justify as necessary to protect us? The government will take what we give them, and more unfortunately, because it makes their job easier.

I don't want to understate the threat that terrorists pose to the US, but everyone should not be punished for the actions of few. I understand why the actions were taken, but I don't agree with them. The problem is, it seems every time we give up freedoms in the name of safety, we do not get them back. And with some of these laws aimed at terrorism, if a loose definition of terrorism is applied, then those powers can be used on citizens unjustly. Authority to presume guilt without a trial. Guilty until proven innocent. Some of these laws will never affect the average citizen, but it's still important not to become complacent about freedom. Today it's someone else's freedoms being taken away, but tomorrow it could be your's. Stand up for freedom, because it's what makes life worth living.