Despite public and military support for overturning Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the legislation which bans openly gay service members, political, military and religious leaders cite a variety of objections to changing the law. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) worries that allowing gays to serve openly would impact troop "morale;" Marine Corp Commandant Gen. James Amos says that a policy change may affect "unit cohesion" and "combat effectiveness." Among the religious leaders opposed to overturning Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is Catholic Archbishop for the Military Services Timothy J. Broglio, who fears that chaplains would be forced to compromise their principles in accepting "objectively disordered" homosexuality, adding that he "can never condone -even silently -homosexual behavior." What beliefs are behind banning gays in the military? What’s the role of religion in this debate?
If we consult the world’s scriptures, almost without exception homosexuality is condemned. The "unnaturalness" of same-sex attraction linked it to sin and God’s disapproval. At the same time, the "naturalness" of having multiple wives was linked to God’s approval. Clearly, neither one was natural or unnatural. They were socially condemned or approved of, and society’s norms change. It is really up to us to formulate our own values. Using God as an authority is an excuse. We don’t invoke God to approve of premarital sex and birth control. We take responsibility.
There will always be a cutting edge and a rear guard in every social change. Anyone who has worked in civil rights or the women’s movement is well aware of that. A hundred years ago one could hear sermons from the pulpit that condemned a woman’s right to vote using scriptural references. But one of the great advantages of becoming liberated form religious dogma (a very different thing from honoring religious faith and seeking) is that equality has increased. I have always found it suspicious that the world’s scriptures enforce a sense of high and low birth, on the basis of race, gender, or any other measure. It’s not cynicism to note that somehow the priestly class or caste comes out on top. Religion has hidden levels of power struggle and social antagonism.
The rise of women parallels the rise of gay rights, but the latter is more sensitive psychologically. Enlightened or not, we harbor deep insecurity about our sexual identity. One of the easiest ways to escape your own worries is to project them on others. Our slurs against gay people share the same mechanism. "I feel more like a real man if you are less of a man. I am more feminine if you are less feminine." So it comes as no surprise that those people who are most secure in their own sexuality are the most tolerant — and least threatened — by other sexual orientations.
As it stands, the prejudice against gay people is steadily if slowly lifting. Does religion help or hinder their bid for equality? The answer is obvious when you look at the intractable doctrine of sin. Faiths like Islam and Catholicism, insofar as they believe that God has named what is sinful and what is not, will remain out of step with the modern world, and with enlightened humanity in general. The best friend that civil rights, women’s rights, and gay rights have ever had is secularism. Yet if we look deeper, God must surely love all human beings equally, and when the oppressed look for solace, they can find it in spirituality that is liberated from prejudice. That kind of spirituality expresses the truly spiritual side of our aspirations to experience the divine and express it in ourselves.
Published in the Washington Post/On Faith
For more information go to deepakchopra.com
PHOTO (cc0: Flickr / aloha orangeneko
"But one of the great advantages of becoming liberated from religious dogma (a very different thing from honoring religious faith and seeking) is that equality has increased. I have always found it suspicious that the world's scriptures enforce a sense of high and low birth, on the basis of race, gender, or any other measure."
i'm glad you made the real distinction between dogma and true religious faith and seeking. as to the second sentence … yeah, me too.
my question: you're shot up, lying wounded in the sand, and without medical treatment, you're going to die. the helicopters have landed and your unit's been given the orders to pull out or else get massacred. everybody in your unit bolts for the helicopters. the only soldier who notices you're still alive stops, turns, and, heading back into heavy enemy fire, runs to you, hoists you over their shoulder and fireman carries you back to the helicopter.
do you really think that sexual orientation plays any role here? from either perspective? if you were the gay soldier lying and bleeding to death, how would you feel thinking that nobody came for you because you were gay? if you were the gay soldier coming back to save your fallen fellow soldier, you think the fallen fellow soldier would ask your sexual orientation first before agreeing to allow you to save their life?
obvious, isn't it? apparently, not to all.
I guess my question is this….
How could any man or woman stand in front of an enlisted service man or women who has served in Afganistan, or Iraq or Vietnam or WWII, put their life on the "actual line" between life and death, risked their life and limb for each and every one of us in service to our Nation's national security and deny them the right, the respect, the dignity to be openly homosexual?
Answer only those who are denying the actual existence of the human being in front of them.
I am angry that this denial is allowed to this day by our government in the face of the reality of the gift and the service and the sacrifice that homosexuals contritute to the safey and well being and security of this Nation.
Shame on the Untied States Government and Military.
And it is even more difficlt for Transgendered people to be accepted… Even if in many ancient cultures Transgendered people were looked up upon, as they was thought to be more connected to being, as they could express both the masculine and feminine.