Repeal 'don't ask, dont' tell,' preserve values and save lives

Q: Top U.S. defense officials say they will repeal the decades-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which requires gay soldiers to keep their sexual orientation secret. Homosexuality is often cast as a religious issue. Should religious views of homosexuality be a factor in such military decisions? Should the U.S. military repeal its 'don't ask, don't tell' policy?

Progressives often attack the religious right for ignoring what Americans have in common and focusing instead on divisive, hot-button "values" issues like gays in the military. But the U.S. armed forces' "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a litmus test for our society's values and morals. Few things could be more integral to us human beings than the ways in which we understand, encourage, and forbid making war and love with one another. So why wouldn't we get hot and bothered about a policy that so obviously affects both? A soldier's ability to call out openly to the person they love when they are wounded on a battlefield is not some mere procedural question, to be treated like a decision about how many paperclips to buy for the offices at the Pentagon. No, the right is right that DADT is a values issue. They simply come down on exactly the wrong side of the debate.

There is nothing wrong with gay soldiers serving our country honorably and openly in the armed forces. It has already happened in the UK, Canada, and Israel (a country not exactly known for low military morale or effectiveness). There is, however, a huge moral problem with asking our soldiers, who in some cases risk their lives on our behalf nearly every minute of their day, to be less than honest, or less than open, or to treat gay American military personnel as less than fully equal.

The question is, how, or why should we come to this conclusion? How do we decide what is right and wrong when it comes to gays in the military, or any other issue? In this country where the majority of people call themselves religious, some will ask where in our religious traditions the liberal view of equality is justified. That may be fine for them. But, in the spirit of interfaith dialogue let me speak for myself: I don't need a Bible or some other sacred text to tell me that these moral truths are true. I don't need to pray to a god for permission to acknowledge that my gay and lesbian fellow citizens are just like me, that they deserve equal rights and consideration. As a Humanist, I draw my values from human experience. I do my very best to judge responsibly what is good and right in this world, finding confirmation in recent research showing that nonreligious people have every bit the conscience and the moral sense that religious people do. But I also find support for my beliefs in every friendship I make with someone of a different background who turns out to be just like me. And so I believe with every fiber of my being that honesty, integrity, openness, and equality are Humanist values--values we should all be willing to fight to defend.

Of course, Humanists have many religious allies on this issue. There are many liberal religious believers who affiliate themselves with belief systems that have historically condemned homosexuality in one way or another, but find ways to reconcile ancient intolerance with their modern congregations. I hope some of these religious allies of the Humanist position might even draw some inspiration from the unequivocal, unambivalent, unconflicted stance many of my fellow Humanists, atheists, agnostics and nonreligious citizens take toward embracing the full equality of the GLBT population, in life, love, and war. That's why the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard gave our first annual "Service to Humanity Award" to Lt. Dan Choi, an Arabic linguist and Harvard student who has served bravely and patriotically but whose courage to acknowledge his own sexuality got him discharged, under DADT, for "moral and professional dereliction."

Lt. Choi is a Christian, but our Humanist community was proud to support him in his campaign for reinstatement--writing letters, awarding him a scholarship, and otherwise-- despite differing with him on theology. I thought of him happily when President Obama made and Admiral Mike Mullen made their bold calls for the repeal of DADT in recent days. I hope he will be able to return soon to the difficult but important work of translating American values and intentions into Arabic language. I also simply hope Christians, gays, and others will recognize the value of Humanist values around these sorts of issues, and one day in the not-too-distant future begin to speak up more against discrimination or even subtle prejudice against the nonreligious, just as Humanists continue to speak out for them.

I'm not a pacifist; I don't think Humanism requires pacifism. Sometimes we need to fight against intolerance and even be willing to risk violence. But we need to think very carefully about the use of force and there is no question that we have not always been nearly thoughtful enough in recent years. A more diverse military will be a more thoughtful military, a less unquestioning one. In such a complex world, thoughtfulness too can be a great moral strength. There are no massive fronts of enemies we can ever again simply wipe out with huge bombs. We must understand those who would hate us. We must even learn to communicate with them, in whatever language they speak, whatever religion they hold dear. By forcing us to communicate better amongst ourselves about our values, our morals, the potential DADT repeal may save thousands of lives, or even more.

By Greg M. Epstein  |  February 10, 2010; 10:48 AM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Tell and don't ask | Next: 'Don't ask, don't tell' was always a bad idea

Posted by: dangeroustalk | February 11, 2010 8:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: US-conscience | February 11, 2010 12:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: joe_allen_doty | February 10, 2010 1:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.