- Australian P.M. Abbott: MH17 evidence tampered with on ‘industrial scale’
- Rep. Luis Gutierrez tells Hispanics to vote and ‘punish those’ who oppose amnesty
- Country singer Tim McGraw not sorry for slapping female fan: ‘Things happen’
- Iraq vet cited for owning 14 therapeutic pet ducks
- White House takes credit for drop in unaccompanied children at border
- International crises be damned, Obama’s fundraising trip must go on
- Friend of bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev found guilty of impeding probe
- Train with MH17 plane crash bodies leaves rebel town in Ukraine
- Half of Colorado voters are OK with Hobby Lobby decision, poll shows
- HIV-killing condom to soon hit shelves in Australia
Letters to the editor
Question of the Day
Imposing morals in the military
Maj. Daniel L. Davis‘ argument in “Homosexuals in the military” (Op-Ed Wednesday) can be construed as an apologia in support of certain religious morals determining who serves. Is Maj. Davis saying the religious and moral scruples of some members should be shielded against immorality? In that case, let’s prevent heterosexual adulterers and fornicators from becoming or remaining service members. (Didn’t the Zogby poll ask about religious beliefs, too? Why didn’t Maj. Davis “crunch” those numbers? He leaves too much out in his analysis.)
I was in the military and most recently employed by Army Family Advocacy as a civilian instructor dealing with moral, ethical and legal issues. I encountered many heterosexuals who were engaged in very questionable moral practices, especially when held up against certain religious values. Even though it often created problems in the military, seldom was anyone kicked out of the services or otherwise seriously punished for it. If Maj. Davis‘ rule were followed, I’d say there is a very serious problem in allowing heterosexual fornicators and adulterers into the services as well. Or are fornicators and adulterers less immoral?
I’m just trying to avoid the hypocrisy generated by selecting only a certain minority group (homosexuals) for special moral scrutiny by another minority group (religion-based).
When should we stop managing the moral beliefs of service members to avoid offending some other members? And just which interpretation of religion is going to be the basis for establishing these moral rules? This sounds more like an issue of “who speaks for God” than it does who can serve their country.
Aren’t the ethical and moral problems better resolved with rational evidence and debate rather than enforcement of questionable, highly personal religious morals? Isn’t that what democracy and freedom and the American way is all about?
Maj. Davis‘ argument is too hypocritical to be taken seriously.
JOE V. PETERSON
Pierce College Military
Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base, Wash.
Health-care freedom of choice
Reader Elyse Seigle attacks my argument for freedom of choice by patient and doctor (“Is health choice an illusion?” Letters, Thursday) following my account of a tumor being identified and removed quickly and successfully within the current health-care system. I will answer her points:
U.S. appetite for drugs begets violence migrants are fleeing
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- Jewish woman booted from JetBlue flight over fight with Palestinian
- Edward Snowden to work with Russia on anti-spy technology
- YOUNG: A sinking presidency, deeper after November?
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- Rihanna, Dwight Howard delete #FreePalestine tweets
- U.S. scrambles as violence escalates in Israel-Hamas conflict
- Ron Paul: U.S. partly to blame for Malaysia Airlines disaster
- MERRY: Handicaps in Hillary's way
- EDITORIAL: Snipers from the left target Hillary
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq