"Right to Serve" Why I am leaving Soulforce

[kara speltz]

I sent this letter today to the Board and to the Staff:

Ever since April, when I first heard Jake talk about the "Right to Serve" campaign, I have been struggling mightily with whether I could stay on with Soulforce. I even quit for a 24 hour period, but decided ultimately that given that the RTS was simply one small campaign that would be finished in August, I could stay. But the reports on RTS continued through August, September, October with forecasted demonstrations in November. On Monday, when on a staff call Haven talked about working on a fund raising letter for RTS, I was shocked to say the least.

I have never been able to comprehend how an organization that proclaimed King and Gandhi as our teachers could support such an action. I always saw Soulforce, as a nonviolent organization focusing on winning the rights of LGBTs through nonviolence. For me, nonviolence is not a tactic, it is a way of life. Believing in nonviolence means to me that it forces us to reframe all we have previously been taught about life and meaning. It means every single life is sacred. As I see it, Soulforce has changed from a nonviolent organization supporting the rights of LGBTs, to just another gay rights group using the tactics of nonviolence. That commitment to nonviolence made us unique unlike any other organization. Through these almost 8 years, Soulforce has taught me much about nonviolence, and I am so very grateful for that.

But I just can't comprehend how people committed to nonviolence, can encourage anyone, straight or gay, to join the military in this time of a clearly immoral war? While people in the peace movement are trying to stop recruitments we stand against them trying to have people join the military. How can we put the rights of gay people before the basic right of the Iraqi people to peace and justice? I have seen that suffering up close in Iraq in my two trips there, and I simply cannot stand by and watch as any organization I belong to, encourages people to join the armed forces at this time.

As Jamie has pointed out a number of times, King was very clear about the war in Vietnam - another of America's immoral wars. How can we take this unholy stand?

And so it is with very heavy heart, that I have made this decision. For me it is like going through a very painful divorce. I pray that Soulforce will return to its original commitment to nonviolence as a way of life and decide to stop this Right to Serve campaign. If that were to happen, I would be so proud to be a member of this organization. But it appears that Soulforce has become comfortable with this new tract, and I have no real expectation that it could or would change at this point.

My last day with Soulforce will be December 31, 2006.

Sadly, Kara

[Zerbie]

Regretable and understandable. I hope you will continue to frequent the forum and share your input.

All the best in your future endeavors.

:pray:
Peace,

Zerbie

[HarmlessEccentric]

I understand where you are coming from. I am a longtime pacifist, and I would certainly be more comfortable if the next initiative came in an area that I could support. I'm also uncomfortable with how far it is from what I thought was the purpose of Soulforce- to help people of faith learn to accept gay and lesbian people of faith.

But I'm going to stick with Soulforce through this one. Gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, if they want to, and it's worthwhile to get people having the conversation about why they can't. It's not a path I'd choose, or one that I'd advise anyone I care about to choose, but it's a choice I should be able to make.

Still... it's a long way from the issues of faith and religion that brought me to Soulforce.

[kara speltz]

But I'm going to stick with Soulforce through this one. Still... it's a long way from the issues of faith and religion that brought me to Soulforce.

Dear Harmless: Please know I wasn't suggesting everyone should leave Soulforce. As a staffmember, I felt compelled. My reasons for sharing this struggle are two-fold. One because I believe Soulforce leadership at this point needs a great deal of prayer, and two they need to hear from people who believe we should return to our nonviolent commitments.

I will always love Soulforce, not only for all the amazing folks I've met within Soulforce, but for the wonderful opportunities it gave me.

Kara

[NathanATX]

I don't think that joining the military is saying you support Bush's war. If we continued down that logical path, we could assume that all troops support the war... but we know that isn't true. There is a growing, more vocal dissent among the troops every day.

I believe most people join the military out of a desire to serve their country, protect our people & values, etc. Some join because it is the best career alternative they have... Some consider it a great career path.

Is there a more productive solution to your concerns?

Could you develop a program within Soulforce that advocates peace?

I just don't believe that joining the military is equivalent to supporting George Bush's evils... It might actually turn out to be a way to help ensure a higher level of moral integrity in our forces.

Kara, I thank you for all your love, gifts, time & service with Soulforce. I hope you will reconsider leaving and find a solution that satisifies your desire to work for an end to Bush's wars. Whatever choice you make, know that we hold the deepest love and respect for you.

Much love,
Nate

[BruceChris]

Kara, you will always be welcome here.

Bruce Chris

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I am not critical of Kara, and I agree with her anti-war stance. Still, I do feel that I can, in good conscience, support the Right to Serve campaign without endorsing either this war or war in general.

I was really pleased to see in Mel's new book that he takes a firm stand against the Iraq War. It's not a very big piece of the book and I don't believe it addresses our Right to Serve campaign at all, but I'm glad he wrote it. I sensed he was against the war years ago, but noticed that he ducked an argument over it at an informal dinner I attended with him once. I don't fault him for that either--arguments at dinner are never a good idea!

I agree with Nate--I believe it is a mistake for progressives and pro-peace people to let themselves become alienated from military people and veterans. I believe we need to have progressives and pro-peace people in the military if we are to maintain a healthy democracy. Frankly, I think I'm probably pro-draft because a draft would probably have assured a stronger protest against this war. War in this country is too easy when all that is required of the rich who rule is to hire the poor without job alternatives to fight their wars for them.

I hope we do not lose Kara's input here nor her on-going witness to peace. I appreciate that she is remaining true to her principles.

Steven Webster

[Jamie McDaniel]

I am not critical of Kara, and I agree with her anti-war stance. Still, I do feel that I can, in good conscience, support the Right to Serve campaign without endorsing either this war or war in general.
I'm thinking that this is the dividing point. Among progressives, everyone is against the war. It has become our motto, our yellow ribbon magnet that we put on our cars, a short paragraph we place somewhere on our web sites or blogs.

But do our actions line-up with our words? Or are we fueling what we say we're against?

Like other progressives, Dr. King could have merely stated that while he was not in favor of the war in Vietnam, his concerns were more on the line of civil rights for African Americans. In fact, that is what he did for the first three years of the war. But then he reached a point where he knew he could no longer be silent. And when he crossed that line he did so with the conviction of a man of faith. Dr. King told the young people to go to jail. Go to jail rather than go to Vietnam as part of the U.S. military.

Soulforce, on the other hand, is actively taking people to the military recruitment centers. And not during a time of peace, mind you, but right in the middle of the Iraq war. Questionable from a gay rights group, unbelievable for an interfaith organization rooted in nonviolence.

A majority vote may have made the Right to Serve campaign a reality, it did not make it right. That is my analysis.

The truly shocking thing, of course, is that people I respect and care about seem to see the matter completely differently. I shake my head in disbelief and am on the verge of tearing my clothes and pouring ashes on my head Old Testament style.

[Jamie McDaniel]

The Rev. Dr. Paul Egertson, Bishop Emeritus, Southwest California Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and senior lecturer in Religion at California Lutheran University is on the Soulforce Board of Directors. He asked that I post his response to Kara's letter of resignation.

---------------------------------------

Kara,

Thank you for sharing your struggle and decision in response to Soulforce's Right to Serve initiative. I would deeply regret losing you as a colleague in the effort to bring justice to the GLBT community through non-violence. The role you have played has been inspirational to many of us and your absence will be painful.

I hesitate to request reconsideration when a person has taken a difficult stand on grounds of conscience. So please don't read the following as a questioning of either your convictions or your courage. I only need to give you my witness as you have so clearly given us yours.

If I thought the Right to Serve initiative (I don't use words like crusade or even campaign for such efforts because of their aggressive and militaristic associations) was an endorsement of the war in Iraq, I would be resigning from Soulforce with you. However, as a member of the Board where this effort was described, discussed and supported, I can say that no such implication was ever even hinted at nor was any such interpretation implied. I think I can say that no member of the Board would have supported the effort if that had been either its intent or an anticipated unintended consequence.

The focus of the effort in my understanding is only to challenge the injustice to GLBT people that is blatant in the government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in regard to serving the security needs of the nation. That our current administration is at least unwisely and at worst immorally using the security forces that keep us free in ways that lead to more rather than less violence, does not negate the larger need for a military arm to foster peace in the nation and the world.

In other words, the existence of a military and the use of the military are separate things and its misuse does not negate the need for its existence for appropriate use. I would not live in a country that had no protective system such as police and military units because, however unwisely they may sometimes be misused, on balance they reduce the violence in a community and increase the peace in society. Without them, peace would be nonexistent and violence rampant. I believe in original sin.

The Right to Serve initiative addresses that larger issue and seems to me to be totally in line with the Soulforce commitment to non-violence. Total pacifism and non-violence are not identical in my mind, though I know they are in the minds of others. If I believed that the very existence of a military in our government was itself an evil, then I would rejoice that GLBT people were exempt from it and congratulate our administration for its policy and advocate for its expansion to include all people. But since I cannot in conscience do that, I must in conscience advocate for a change in the current policy. At the same time, I can non-violently advocate for an end to the misuse of our military in Iraq. They are separate issues.

Since you remain with us through this year, I'll pray that the Spirit may find a way for you to both remain active in opposition to the Iraq war and remain in partnership with Soulforce - understanding that Right to Serve is not an endorsement of that or any war, but an appeal to our government to allow GLBT people to participate in keeping the peace in our country. It's a close but I think clear distinction.

Blessings
Paul Egertson

[marutidas]

If the internal of hatred is not tamed,
When one tries to tame external enemies, they increase.
Therefore it is the practice of the wise to tame themselves
By means of the forces of Love and Compassion.
--Bodhisattva Tokmay Sangpo
(the Buddha of Compassion)

While we should be able to choose our own path in life.
I will never be comfortable with the idea of war.
To many countries at this time are too comfortable with idea of ending another human being's life.

At present you find it unbearable that your friends suffer,
But you are pleased that your enemies suffer, and
you are indiffernet to the suffering of neutral persons.
--Tsongkhapa, Great Treaties on the stages of the Path

I hope that you will come and visit every now and again, Kara.
:pray:With closed palms, I bow to the divinity within you.
Your devotion to peace is unyeilding, you will be missed.

[Jeff Lutes]

Dear Soulforce Friends,

Thank you for your open and honest dialogue regarding the disappointing news that Kara Speltz has resigned from the staff at Soulforce. As Executive Director, I appreciate the many ways you have offered your love and prayers to Kara as she continues on her journey.

I want you to know that the decision to support the “Right to Serve” campaign and our youth was one made only after countless hours of prayerful consideration. We listened to our staff, our board, and many other loyal supporters and weighed their varying opinions carefully before making our decision. We wholeheartedly support the youth’s courageous efforts.

Our youth are also busy planning “Equality Ride 2007: Twice the Impact” with two buses and twice as many universities that will hear the truth about God’s love for LGBT people, just as they are. They need your support.

I’ve asked our President and Founder, the Rev. Dr. Mel White, to summarize our reasons for supporting the “Right to Serve” campaign. You will find his thoughtful response below.

Blessings,

Jeff Lutes, MS, LPC

[Mel White]

Dear Soulforce friends,

I have just received word that Kara Speltz, a beloved colleague, has resigned from Soulforce to protest the “Right to Serve” campaign by our Soulforce Youth. I am only responding to her complaints publicly because she has gone so public with her complaints. These are the two primary reasons she gives for her resignation.

First Kara writes,
...I just can't comprehend how people committed to nonviolence, can encourage anyone, straight or gay, to join the military in this time of a clearly immoral war? While people in the peace movement are trying to stop recruitments we stand against them trying to have people join the military.

I feel terrible about losing Kara. She has been a good and faithful friend. But she has not been able to comprehend the fact that from the beginning our young people have not "encouraged anyone to join the military." NOT ONE! There are tens of thousands of GLBT Americans who for their own personal reasons want to serve their nation in the military. It is not our role to judge or condemn their decision.

The ban that keeps them from serving is a PRIMARY EXAMPLE of religion based oppression. Therefore our Soulforce Mission Statement compels us to oppose the ban. Our archives are filled with radio and television recordings, booklets, pamphlets, tracts, and fund raising letters from Christian fundamentalist leaders who use this issue to demean, dehumanize and demonize all GLBT Americans as sexual predators who will prey on their comrades in arms. This lie, and therefore this ban, has tragic consequences for us all.

Remember, the overriding goal of Christian fundamentalists is to see that GLBT Americans are never accepted as a legitimate minority. "That would bring God's judgment on the land," they say. That's why they attack us on every front simultaneously insisting that we be denied: hate crime legislation, domestic partnership, adoption and foster care rights, public housing or accommodation protections, the civil rights of marriage, the religious rites of ordination and the right to serve this nation in the military.

Our youth leaders were wise to attack the ban at this time when 75-80% of all Americans favor the rights of GLBT people to serve in the military. This rising opposition to the ban is the only place where Christian fundamentalists are truly vulnerable. To end the ban would be a HUGE STEP FORWARD in our struggle against religion based oppression and a MAJOR LOSS in the false and inflammatory campaign by Christian fundamentalists against us.

The "Right to Serve Campaign" has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH RECRUITING GLBT FOR THE MILITARY. From the beginning Jake, Haven and our other young allies (gay and straight alike) in thirty cities have simply gone where there are GLBT Americans whose family histories often include generations of military service, GLBT Americans who have dreamed all their lives of attending West Point or Annapolis, GLBT American who for whatever reason want to serve their country in the military. Our Soulforce Youth have said simply, “We will help end the injustice against you by giving you a platform to make your case against it and we will provide you our relentless nonviolent support with silent vigils, nonviolent protests and when necessary civil disobedience.”

To even suggest that Soulforce is "encouraging any one - straight or gay - to join the military..." is absolutely untrue and an unfair characterization of the goals of our Soulforce Youth. Please take one moment to click on the link below. Watch the TV interviews of these GLBT Americans who have dreamed of serving their country as their fathers and grandfathers before them. You will see that these young Americans are suffering religion based oppression as much as those who cannot be married or ordained. You will also discover that our “Right to Serve” Soulforce Youth Campaign provides the nation a deeply moving example of young people taking their powerful and exemplary stand against religion based oppression by their thoughtful practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/865

Kara also writes:
...King was very clear about the war in Vietnam - another of America's immoral wars. How can we take this unholy stand?

Our stand is not an “unholy stand” supporting the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or any of the other unwise and illegitimate military efforts of this administration. Our stand is no more and no less than an act of relentless nonviolent resistance against religion based oppression.

For our Soulforce Youth to refuse to attack this major example of religion based oppression would say to our GLBT sisters and brothers who want to join the military, we are sorry that you are suffering but we cannot support your struggle for justice because we do not believe in war let alone the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although I am a member of several peace organizations including the Fellowship of Reconciliation, I did not begin Soulforce as a peace organization determined to end war. We are (I say again) a justice seeking organization determined to end religion based oppression against GLBT people through relentless nonviolent resistance.

Now, I would like to speak more specifically to the comparison of our Soulforce “Right to Serve” Campaign with Dr. King’s 1967 stand against the war in Vietnam. Dr. King never had to struggle for the rights of black Americans to serve in the military. That struggle began in 1863 when civil rights activist Frederick Douglas pressured President Lincoln to use an executive order to allow black Americans to serve their country in the military. It ended in 1947 when civil rights activist A. Phillip Randolph pressured President Truman to use an executive order to integrate the military. In 1961, Dr. King used the Nation magazine to praise the President for integrating the armed forces through Executive Order 9981 and went on to remind the current President that Executive Orders could also be used to end all discrimination against black Americans.

During his first campaign for the presidency, Bill Clinton promised to end the ban on gays in the military “shortly after his inauguration.” When he was forced to break his promise by the overwhelming opposition by Christian fundamentalists, the President made things even worse with his flawed policy,“Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell. Don’t Pursue.”

Seeing the President capitulate to the demands of Christian fundamentalist leaders, I joined other civil rights activist in a White House protest that ended in our arrest. The “Right to Serve” campaign by our Soulforce Youth stands directly in that tradition. Whether a war is “just” or “unjust” the law banning our right to serve in the military is an unjust law held in place by the antigay rhetoric of Christian fundamentalists and Soulforce has no option but to attack that unjust law. Our Soulforce Youth are doing the same work for GLBT Americans as the work done by Frederick Douglass and A. Phillip Randolph for African-Americans.

The question we must ask is NOT should we work too end the ban but how should Soulforce respond to the war efforts of the Bush Administration. It was a very difficult decision for Dr. King to condemn the war in Vietnam. I have been thrilled to preach twice in that Riverside Church where on April 4, 1967 King announced his opposition to the war in Vietnam. I can only begin to imagine the pressure he faced that day.

“When pressed by the demands of untruth,” King explained, “men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war…Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.” Dr. King describes his own decision to oppose the war as “a vocation of agony” and then added “But we must speak.”

It’s been four years since the US invaded Iraq. To decide how we as individuals should respond to that war is long overdue. So, now I must ask myself, how does my Christian faith (and my commitment to relentless nonviolent resistance) call me to respond to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Gary and I have opposed the foreign policies of the Bush administration privately as American citizens. We have contributed personal funds to organizations and candidates opposing the war (including the organization that sent Kara to Iraq.) We are currently knocking on doors, making phone calls, raising funds, posting ads, lawn signs and bumper stickers to support candidates opposed to this unjust and immoral war. And though I have opposed this so called “war on terror” from the beginning as a private citizen, while Executive Director of Soulforce I did not assume the right to speak for the Soulforce board, staff, or our faithful supporters on any other issue than the issue clearly mandated by our Mission Statement.

On November 7, Gary and I hope that leadership in the Congress will change, that those who are elected will pressure our President to end this war and in the process end the useless suffering and death on all sides. However, if Christian fundamentalists succeed in keeping their control over Congress or if a newly elected Democrat majority fails to act quickly to withdraw our troops and end this war, I will call GLBT activists to join together in a massive White House protest against the President’s war policies. I will do this not as President of Soulforce but as a Christian American committed to the principles of relentless nonviolent resistance.

In closing I want you to know that the “Right to Serve” campaign has cost Soulforce the loss of several long time friends and supporters including our own Kara Speltz. At this moment, Soulforce is struggling month by month just to pay the bills. Nevertheless it is a price we are willing to pay.
I will miss Kara dearly but I believe with all my heart that she is wrong to condemn the “Right to Serve” campaign.

It is ironic that Kara was one of the trainers who taught the principles of relentless nonviolent resistance to our Soulforce Youth. Now they are putting those principles to practice in their way to confront an issue that effects their generation. I hope you will join in me in prayerful support of these courageous and committed young people as they oppose a ban that demeans and dehumanizes all GLBT people, denies GLBT people another of our civil rights, and make outcasts of millions of loyal, loving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Americans. I congratulate them and wish them well!

[Daniel]

Dear Dr. White,

While it may be a fact that no young person has actually encouraged anyone to join the military, it is equally true that the public and this forumite is left with the distinct impression to the contrary. As has been noted, the medium is the message. Seeing an organization which expouses the methods of NONVIOLENCE belly up to the bar of one's neighborhood recruiting station not only causes consternation in this reader, but the desire to join in the sentiment as expressed by Jamie.

We can perhaps all agree that government discrimination of gay persons isn't a good thing, but the hairsplitting argument that you use in this matter does Soulforce a disservice. Just because young people are eager to serve (and die) for their country says less about government policy than it does about youth which thinks itself immortal.

There is nothing noble or moral about dying or killing. My own father, who served in the Korean War, had nothing good to say about the affair. War is a messy business. Which speaks to point: methods of nonviolence and methods of attack are as much the mixing of and water and oil. Together, they make for a very slippery surface.

I fear that Soulforce is getting in way over its head regarding this policy. Just because religious conservatives are 'vulnerable' on this issue is no reason to attack the matter.

Sincere regards,

Daniel

[NathanATX]

Daniel, when this evil war is over and our forces are used for genuine peacekeeping and stabilizing initiatives, will your position be the same?

I don't like war... especially this war.

Rev. Paul Dodd is one of the clergy in residence at my church. He was a Southern Baptist military chaplain for many years... I think he was the highest ranking Southern Baptist chaplain. Anyway, I've heard him share how hard it was to be gay in the military. I have several friends who married each other to make it easier to be closeted (gay man & lesbian). The Servicemembers Legal Defese Network, www.sldn.org, has been working for years to bring inclusion to the armed forces.

Anyway... I do believe this is a social justice issue and one that Soulforce should lead on. The timing is the big issue, I guess.

love,
Nate

[Daniel]

Daniel, when this evil war is over and our forces are used for genuine peacekeeping and stabilizing initiatives, will your position be the same?


Yes. My 'position' will remain the same.

I am not a pacifist- that's not how I understand the principles of nonviolence to function. I simply do no see how the end justifies the means.

It's been documented that gay people are much less prone to violence. And it seems to me that we should think twice about being involved in the aggression that is all too often encouraged in young men. And I do not see why one should rely on leaders- whoever they are- who all too often send young people to their deaths. This war- that war- it is all the same regardless of the party in power. It is hubris to think that- gee- once 'we' get in power all will be better. It won't. It is the culture of war and aggression itself that needs addressing.

Can we live without aggression and attack? I think we can. And we must, I believe, if we are to live into the 22nd century. Everyone (and we started the madness), wants the right to the bomb. And what is 'defense'? A nice way to get ready to attack.

A line from A Course in Miracles that is worth contemplating.

Truth Needs No Defense

Or how about this one?

Thou Shall Not Kill

Or this one?

Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You.

Do you really want the right to kill? For that is what Soulforce is fighting for. You can put any kind of noble or happy face on it, but it's still the fight for the right to harm another human being.

What then, does nonviolence mean?

This is a much bigger issue than the Right to Serve.

[kara speltz]

.
Do you really want the right to kill? For that is what Soulforce is fighting for. You can put any kind of noble or happy face on it, but it's still the fight for the right to harm another human being.

What then, does nonviolence mean?

This is a much bigger issue than the Right to Serve.

Daniel: I couldn't agree more. I'd like to share with people the quote my friend Jim Loney made about his rescue after being held captive for 4 months in Iraq. He spoke of the paradox, and the need for us to always strive to live our lives steeped in nonviolence. He wrote this just shortly after his rescue.

"I am confronted with a great paradox. I, the Christian pacifist peacemaker, am alive, am free because of the very institutions I believe are contrary to Christian teaching.

"Christ teaches us to love our enemies, do good to those who harm us, pray for those who persecute us. He calls us to accept suffering before we inflict injury. He calls us to pick up the cross and to lay down the sword.

"We will most certainly fail in this call. I did. And I'll fail again. This does not change Christ's teaching that violence itself is the tomb, violence is the dead end.

"Peace won through the barrel of a gun might be a victory, but it is not peace. Our captors have guns and they ruled over us. Our rescuers had bigger guns and ruled over our captors. We were freed, but the rule of the gun stayed.

I'm learning that there are many kinds of prisons and many kinds of tombs. Prisons of the mind, the heart, the body. Tombs of despair, fear confusion. Tombs within tombs and prisons within prisons.

"There are no easy answers. We must all find our way through a broken world, struggling with the paradox of call and failure. My captivity and rescue have helped me to catch a glimpse of how powerful the force of Resurrection is. God seeks us wherever we are, reaches for us in whatever darkness we inhabit. May we reach for each other with the same persistence. The tomb is not the final word."

Kara

[Zerbie]

Brilliant, Daniel. :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

I see the passionate caring expressed by everyone here, and ultimately Daniel puts it better than I can, it is the culture of violence itself that must be addressed, not the details.

Kara's friend also says the same. (Kara, glad you stuck around, please stay on the forums!)

Know that I love all my friends here, and the SF leadership as well. :love: :love: :love: Love is what we ultimately seek to express, and it's Love that must be bigger than "our team/their team" "gay people/straight people" and so on, and on, and on. . .

Thanks for all the wisdom and insights from all on this thread.
Peace,
Zerbie

[NathanATX]

I was just thinking that I really love how we can all grapple with such weighty issues and still be loving with each other.

I've not done a much reading on the topic of war and I'm aware I have much to learn.

Is is just to protect yourself, your family, your country from harm?

If so, and I believe it is, isn't defense more than just a preparation for war?

[Daniel]

Is it just to protect yourself, your family, your country from harm?

If so, and I believe it is, isn't defense more than just a preparation for war?

One doesn't have to be believe in God to wrap one's head around the idea that, as a species, we are going to have to adapt to another way of living together as human beings if we are to survive. The Evolutionist as well as the Creationist/Fundamentalist have equal reasons to 'evolve'. The Evolutionist understands that we are moving further and further away from war-like activities (we don't need to steal other peoples stuff, kill or occupy other countries to survive) and the Creationist/Fundamentalist who is worth his/her salt sees that love/compassion is the only law. All else is madness. There is nothing to be gained by attack, whatever form it takes.

If you live by the sword you die by the sword.

Action. Reaction.

Is there a 'spiritual' equivalent to Newtonian Law? I would like to think so. That's what nonviolence is all about, isn't it? But barring anything spiritual, there are better reasons to live than via armies, war and defense. It's the poverty of imagination that's telling in that kind of thinking.

We can do better.

[NathanATX]

I think we should be working towards that kind of evolution, but it hasn't happened yet.

Do we just allow someone to come and victimize us, our family, our country? Isn't suffering without a purpose against the precepts of non-violence?

On another note... I just watched this video about "right to serve" & DODT...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8ZwThYwvXA

[Haven Herrin]

As a leader in this campaign, I think I will put forth my reasoning for fighting against lifting the ban.

First, my thoughts on the military. It can and does do good things, necessary things. It is not merely a killing machine and war creator. I fault our current leaders for misusing the military in Iraq. I am not personally a pacifist, and I know that Soulforce as an organization is not. So as long as we have a military, and as long as our mission at Soulforce is to end political and religious oppression, I think it best that we fight for an inclusive military.

The Right to Serve has never been about the war or the military per se but about our government that says that LGBT people are second class citizens, this time using the military exclusion as the conveyance of that message. Following, then, the most obvious and clear way of showing America that this ban is affront to every LGBT person's dignity is making the point that DADT is ban to service - a ban on full citizenship - based soley upon sexual orientation. DADT means a ban on service and so much more, not just to those who are in service or want to join, but to other rights we are denied. When the discussions about gay service were taking place in 1993, one of the loudest arguments used for upholding the ban was that it's a 'slippery slope' down to being 'forced' to support gay marriage.

I may never join the military once the ban is lifted, but I will never be okay with my government telling me I am not suitable because of my sexual orientation. Never. And I will never be okay with abandoning the 65,000 LGBT servicemembers already serving in the closet. They are arguably the most voiceless subset of the LGBT community. Saying to those servicemembers that Soulforce should not fight for them would be also telling them that they do not have full Soulforce membership. I know that we have closeted soldiers as part of Soulforce at large, and I would not support of an organization that would not fight for its own children.

I know a lot of us disagree over this, but at the end of the day I feel that I am fighting to end political oppression that comes straight out of religious bigotry. And I know that is well within the purview of Soulforce. It was at the core of Mel's first civil disobedience. Should he not have taken a stand against the signing of DADT? It's not popular, but it's justified and needed. We are the only people willing to take the fight against DADT into the street, and that is what is needed next in the fight against this legislation. This ban should have ended 13 years ago. Simply because there is a deplorable war going on does not mean we should not fight for full, governement-sanctioned inclusion. If anything we are well overdue.

[kara speltz]

I think we should be working towards that kind of evolution, but it hasn't happened yet.

Do we just allow someone to come and victimize us, our family, our country? Isn't suffering without a purpose against the precepts of non-violence?
On another note... I just watched this video about "right to serve" & DODT...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8ZwThYwvXA

Dear Nathan: You ask isn't suffering without a purpose against the precepts of nonviolence. First if we are committed to nonviolence and finding other ways than killing to reach some kind of reconciliation that is hardly, "without a purpose." If we're Christians (which obviously not all of us are) than death clearly is not the end. There are many who have died at the hands of violence who believed it was the only way. If we were able to check the figures, I'd bet that the number of those who believed with all their heart that violence is not the answer and died as a result, the numbers would be much smaller percentage-wise. Certainly the idea of placing ourselves in danger is a hard one. I faced that the two times I went to Iraq. But I had a firm belief that we (who believe in nonviolence) have to be willing to take the same risks as those who believe violence is the only answer.

And the other question for me around these issues is, we as American GLBTs have almost no awareness of the privelege we live in and with. Yes, inequality in terms of DADT hurts us. I won't deny that. But compare that with what we are doing to people in Iraq and it is incomparable.

This commitment to nonviolence, as Walter Wink so strongly points out, is not an easy one. It takes daily practice and commitment and a willingness to suffer for what we believe in. Too often it seems people want some sort of easy answer; easy way out. That's not what its about, in my estimation.

Kara

[NathanATX]

I don't believe that the action to end the war and the action to work toward peace are opposed to the action of working to end discrimination in the military.

I may be willing and able to choose to suffer... for peace, justice, equality, etc... but I am not able to choose that for others.

I may be willing to be attacked, but I am not willing to let those I care for be attacked. I feel this way about the young adults under my care at church. I am out in the public speaking out, sometimes getting harassed, etc. Whatever. I choose to take the lumps and to put myself at risk, but I am not willing to put them at risk. I will probably feel the same way, but even more so, when I have children.

In our current world, we need a strong military. Otherwise, we risk everything.

I understand that our President is out of control. I understand that our troops are commiting human rights abuses. There is no question in my mind that this oil war needs to stop and that we need serious, transformational change in our military.

But we do still need a military. Maybe we shouldn't need a military because the world should be peaceful. But it's not.

And gay & lesbian people deserve the right to join the military... whether it's for a job, a sense of calling, a desire to travel, etc.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

[Mia14]

I was part of the Right to Serve initiative in Philadelphia. I know personally that I do not agree with war in general and I certainly don't agree wtih the current war in Iraq, but the military does more than fight overseas.

I would love to join the Coastguard and help keep our nation's waters safe or help with water rescues. The National Guard, although some have been deployed to Iraq, also protects our country's airports and is there to help in national disasters like Hurrican Katrina. As a nurse in the Army, I could help wounded soldiers who were forced to fight a war they might not have agreed with, but who still deserve quality medical treatment. I wouldn't even need to shoot a gun. The Army also has a department which focuses on developing intelligence against biological terrorism and chemical hazards, a job which can help save lives.

There are jobs that even a pro-peace person like myself can enjoy in our country's military if only we had a chance to join. For this reason, I think we need to take a stand against this discrimination.

[Jamie McDaniel]

I think it is good to be mindful of the very important things we agree on.


Don't Ask, Don't Tell is government sanctioned discrimination and should be abolished.
The war in Iraq is immoral.


But you ask how can I be against DADT and yet be opposed to the Right to Serve campaign.

And I ask how can you be opposed to the war in Iraq and yet be actively working to enlist soldiers.

First, my thoughts on the military. It can and does do good things, necessary things.

And from Paul Egertson's letter from above:
In other words, the existence of a military and the use of the military are separate things and its misuse does not negate the need for its existence for appropriate use. I would not live in a country that had no protective system such as police and military units because, however unwisely they may sometimes be misused, on balance they reduce the violence in a community and increase the peace in society. Without them, peace would be nonexistent and violence rampant.

I am not arguing for the abolishment of the military. However given the history of the U.S. Military, I have no problem saying that I find fault not only with America's use of its military, but with our military mindset. So even in a time of peace, I would have serious problems with Soulforce, an interfaith organization rooted in nonviolence, taking volunteers to the recruitment offices of the U.S. Marines. The National Guard would be somewhat different. (I shake my head in disbelief, having watched the YouTube video of Soulforce volunteers trying to enlist in the U.S. Marines right now.)

It was at the core of Mel's first civil disobedience. Should he not have taken a stand against the signing of DADT? It's not popular, but it's justified and needed.

This is written in a way that suggests those of us that oppose the Right to Serve campaign do not oppose Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That is not the issue at all. The issue is with a nonviolence organization saying it is against an immoral and unjust war, yet working to get volunteers enlisted in the military in the midst of that immoral and unjust war. Right to Serve supporters say the two (military service and military use) can be separated and thus timing of enlistment is irrelevant. I find that argument entirely too convenient. In other words, I don't believe the Divine will just hold the Bush administration accountable over the cries of the Iraqi people. On that day, it will not be good to be a 21st century American.

At this moment in American history, I feel a much stronger kinship with the heterosexual soldiers that are refusing service and facing serious jail time than with the gay and lesbians going to jail trying to enlist.

Example: Lt. Watada (http://www.thankyoult.org/)

I am completely aware that anti-gay fundamentalists use religion to prop up the policy that is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It is an injustice. Yet with the war, there are larger justice issues at stake here.

It should be noted that Kara and I are not the only ones who have problems with this. I understand Rev. Jim Lawson, the civil rights leader who led the Nashville sit-ins and long-time Soulforce supporter, has serious concerns about Soulforce's Right to Serve campaign. As does our flagship local group, Soulforce in New York City. Andrew Brewer sent a letter to Mel and others speaking out against this action. He challenged Soulforce national to once again hear the words of Dr. King.

Regarding Soulforce not acting as a peace organization, but rather as a justice seeking organization determined to end religion based oppression against GLBT people:

"Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live."

And regarding military service:

"As we counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam (read Iraq) and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is the path now being chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly."

Dr. King's Beyond Vietnam speech [pdf (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/Beyond_Vietnam.pdf)]

[Dash]

As Gandhi said...we have no secrets...and this open, internal debate is no shame to Soulforce. We are a family here and there is no doubt that families will argue about what the best or wisest course of action should be. For those who own the Christian tradition, perhaps it is good to remember that even the apostles disagreed and confronted one another regarding the proper course of action in their time.

Kara, I love having you here on our forum. Beyond that, I pray that you will reconsider depriving our beloved organization of your strength, passion, and holy nonviolent character (so needed here) which is manifest most clearly in this thoughtful and resolute stand that you are taking. Your very choice to leave represents all (as I am learning more and more) that nonviolent activism can mean as we try to align our lives ever more closely with that divine spirit which heals all harm. Bravely facing personal loss in order to act on a virtuous principle is a path that carries us into the very heart of the Divine. We need leaders such as you to guide us along that path.

These events and our present debate are a model of the cognitive dissonance that many of us have experienced with the DADT policy and the Right to Serve campaign. I myself am torn, and am not surprised to see that division reflected in the body of our community.

I was raised Mennonite and took from that tradition a commitment to pacifism. My ancestors fled from country to country to avoid conscription in the military, yet I did not hesitate to write a letter to the editor recently when I felt Charles Moskos made light of the protests against the policy he helped craft. Was I right to do so given my absolute rejection of all that military service seems to mean? When the moment came, I felt obligated--spiritually driven--to confront this particular instance of our government's sanction of bigotry and discrimination.

As Jamie points out, we are probably all against both the DADT policy and immoral wars. The policy is an act of spiritual violence--waged not by a Church, but by a civil entity that is itself deeply wicked in many ways. The present and immoral military actions have put us in a situation where I no longer believe we have any right to "win". I believe this country deserves to fail miserably in this military action which has left so many lives ruined and an entire country in rubble. But...I digress...(whew! don't get me started! Hahah!!). I think there is definitely plenty of common ground among all who disagree about Right to Serve.

My hesitation...my paralyzing indecision regarding the Right to Serve action lies solely in the attempts to enlist. First of all, I pretty much idolize as heroes both Haven and Jake. All of those who have taken on this fight have my love and praise. My very first thought, when the Right to Serve campaign was unveiled, was sheer horror that Jake and Haven might actually walk up to a military recruiters office and attempt to enlist. Completely irrational, I know, but I wondered, what if they were somehow enrolled and sent off to kill and be killed in this awful travesty which we call "Peace in Iraq"? So while I am against the DADT and approve whole-heartedly of Soulforce's stance against it, I struggle with this particular method.

"Right to Serve" is very creative...Quite brilliant, in my opinion. I think it is a well-designed action and "speaks" clearly--articulating the blatantly foolish discrimination that is our government's policy toward gay and lesbian people. I am impressed with this cleverly-crafted program because it seems to be a very fitting response to this particular issue.

I'm just not sure that Soulforce itself is completely convinced it is the best method. Somehow it doesn't make quite the rallying focus that other protests (such as the Equality Ride) do. I wonder if it would be possible to regroup and seek another method to protest DADT? Could we focus more on the discriminatory aspect...the shame of a government hosting hatred toward its own people...rather than any desire to serve in the military? Make no mistake, the presence of this damning policy in our legal code affects each of us, whether we are pacifists, or brave defenders, or healers in the midst of conflict. It remains a force for spiritual violence that wounds our nation. As such, it certainly falls within the realm of our work.

Thank you to all of the staff who have weighed in on this discussion. I bow to the divinity in all of you and honor all that you do on our behalf. Regardless of how this turns out, or the direction that Soulforce takes on this particular campaign, I feel strongly that I need to recommit my support of the Soulforce principals and its work.

[kara speltz]

I think I'm just blathering, but....

Dear Dash: Blather on, my brother, blather on!:)

You have raised some very excellent points. First, let me say that this was probably one of the hardest decisions, I've made in my life. On one level it was harder than the decisions to travel to Iraq. And I suspect, I'll stay connected with Soulforce through this wonderful forum that Jamie has created for Soulforce.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge that most organizations would never allow this kind of dissent discussion on their website. It is a real commitment to the importance of ongoing communication. Hopefully, since RTS is such a contentious issue, the conversation will continue. Because nonviolence is never as black and white as we paint it. It is about a personal path that we each follow.

I was born and raised Catholic and never met a Mennonite until I went to Iraq and was so impressed with their commitment and thier openness. (Christian Peacemakers came out of the Mennonite commitment to peace.) On each trip we had a number of Mennonites with us and I expected them to be anti-gay as most Christians were, but instead they were amazingly supportive.

Lastly, just as a commitment to living simply will have many different approaches to it and no two paths will be the same, I suspect the same is true of our journey to nonviolence. Different people will have different approaches and that is why we have to keep listening to one another. And in addition, we really need to make a commitment to studying nonviolence as a lifetime practice.

My understanding of nonviolence is that it is not a human trait, but a divine one, and so prayer, study and ongoing discussion are necessities to help us continue on that path.

I, too, Dash, honor the beautiful divinity within you, Namaste!

Kara

[marutidas]

You all have incredibly valid points.

Yes, I will agree that DADT is a horrible policey and must be changed.

Yes, I believe that everyone has the right to choose their own path for themselves.

Yes, I believe ANY war is immoral, no matter how justifyed and causes more suffering in the long run than they seek to undo.

Yes, I believe it is harder to stand against an enemy non-violently, than to point the barrel of a gun against such danger.

I also know as human-beings we can be pro-active in our own destinies.

If I am to help stop violence, I, myself must stop being Violent. (verbally, spirtually and physically)

I love reading all of your post,
I am truely blessed to know such spirit
With close palms I bow to all of you.
Namaste

[tdogg]

I'm also not sure that the Right to Serve campaign and the belief that the Iraq war is immoral are necessarily opposing ideas. It's clear that feelings are for the most divided - mine are too. Reading this thread left me thinking, perhaps we are not focusing on the real issue at hand.

I also believe in a military presence, although I am opposed to what is going on in the middle east - our presence in Iraq and continuing this war (I believe the US is instrumental in the continuence of the war). However, others have it right in that our military is an important part of keeping peace, assisting in disasters, keeping the country and its citizens safe. So, I'm thinking if having a military is necessary for safety and lives of all of us, then the problem may actually lie in the definition and reputation of our 'military' and what its responbility actually is. I firmly believe that our government and leaders including and most of all our president are abusing the military, its purposes and those who are enlisted.

Perhaps their needs to be a redefinition of 'military' - starting with a new name - and a redesignation of its purposes and priorities. Perhaps by the military advocating and accepting of the GBLT enlistees, we can begin to rework the internals of the military organizations and focus on peacekeeping, assisting, aiding, helping, caring, etc. I believe those are the true priorities of this type of organization (military). Let's get rid of the weapons, the hierarchy, the abuse - lets have a true peacekeeping, peacemaking, peaceloving organization, which includes GLBT people.

Maybe the RTS action isn't perfect, but it appears to have a worthy goal. Maybe we need to organize other actions involving the military to initiate these changes. Without the ability to not only join the military and be openly who we are, how can we even begin to make the changes that are the root of what is wrong with the present day military?

Just some thoughts... Kara, hope you will stay around and continue to share the debate and discussion with us. that's how any major and great change begins - brainstorm, sharing, discussing, disagreeing, more brainstorming. You have much knowledge and experience and it would be a huge loss to have you leave and take that with you.

[Daniel]

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but if one reads through the various responses to this thread in detail, one comes upon the thought which I paraphrase: "We need a military to defend us!"

Do we really?

I am certain that the sentence above opens me up to guffaws of disbelief and assertions of my apparent naivete.

But I would simply like us all to think about the consequences of our thinking for a moment. The thought that one has to defend one's self from the action of others (and it's always some 'other', isn't it?) leads to locked doors, guns hidden in the back of closests and a miltary industrial complex. Why do we not question our 'need' to stock our minds with what could be termed 'attack thoughts'? The gun in hand or the gun in the mind: the creation of one leads to the other.

I ask you: when are we going to give such thoughts up? When the other guy does?

Of course, one might say: "Hardly anyone thinks as you do...we have to keep our guns for now."

Ok.

When do we start changing things? After we blow ourselves up?

[Jamie McDaniel]

I continue to research this weighty question we are wrestling with in this thread. I wanted to share three things.

First, I discovered that six days after Dr. King delivered his Beyond Vietnam speech, the NAACP adopted a statement rebuking efforts to merge the peace movement with the civil rights movement.

Second, I found a collection of articles which includes:


The New York Times editorial chastising King for his statements regarding Vietnam.
Letters to the editor of the New York Times
A letter to Dr. King with concerns over his "encouraging civil disobedience over Vietnam."
Dr. King's response


This collection can be viewed as a PDF at the following link:
www.stanford.edu/group/King/liberation_curriculum/pdfs/vietnamdocs.pdf (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/liberation_curriculum/pdfs/vietnamdocs.pdf)

Third, I discovered the attached photograph of the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee (SNCC) engaging in activism against the Vietnam War. Notice the flyer "Uncle Sam wants You N-----" discusses the U.S. Military wanting blacks to join, saying they will "Receive valuable training in the skills of killing off other oppressed people!"

[NathanATX]

What an amazing conversation.

Dash, I agree... I worried about the young people trying to enlist... what if they actually got in?!? My brother enlisted but didn't make it through boot camp because of his depression/anxiety. He was upset about being rejected, but I breathed a sigh of relief.

DODT is abusive, discriminatory, and dangerously harmful to our young people.

Bush's war is a barbaric way to create a culture of fear and to win republican votes.

The question is, "how do we handle conflict in the most effective, healthy, & loving way?" I am really impressed... and challenged... by the love and integrity present in this conversation.

Is soulforce big enough to hold divergent views? One of my favorite things about MCC churches is the way they hold all kinds of different christian beliefs and doctrines in the same church family.

Is it possible that we can create that kind of spirit here in soulforce? A spirit that allows us to question, challenge, learn and grow, but also honors the different paths we may feel called to take in our journey to stop spiritual violence.


...

[kara speltz]

What an amazing conversation.

The question is, "how do we handle conflict in the most effective, healthy, & loving way?" I am really impressed... and challenged... by the love and integrity present in this conversation.

Is soulforce big enough to hold divergent views? One of my favorite things about MCC churches is the way they hold all kinds of different christian beliefs and doctrines in the same church family.

Is it possible that we can create that kind of spirit here in soulforce? A spirit that allows us to question, challenge, learn and grow, but also honors the different paths we may feel called to take in our journey to stop spiritual violence.
...

Dear Nathan, it is not only possible, it is clearly happening. A large part of my decision to leave, was feeling that the discussion really wasn't happening. There is often a mistaken idea that disagreement is disloyalty and betrayal. The truth is that disagreement such as is going on here, is the sign of a very healthy organization. And our friends are the ones who have the courage to stand up and call us to something better.

As long as RTS is an ongoing campaign of Soulforce, this conversation really needs to continue. If my resignation was the impetus for that conversation, the pain is worth it. I will forever love Soulforce.

Kara

[NathanATX]

I love you, Kara.

Btw, I met you briefly when you were in Dallas with the Equality Riders. I brought MCC Austin's young adults up to join you all.

****
I just came across this article...

http://keyetv.com/local/local_story_302232832.html



"The Lieutenant speaks from his web site about the reasons the Bush administration gave for going to war and the difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war.

"People have asked me, 'Aren't you abandoning your troops by making the decision you've made?'" Watada says. "No, I'm not. The best way I can support my fellow soldiers and those under me is by helping to oppose an illegal war and helping end it."

Watada explains to this South Austin crowd that his son is not a conscientious objector. Ehren does not object to all war, just this war."

He enlisted and then objected to being sent to Iraq. He's being court martialed now.

[KatieHiggins]

Through Haven I have learned about this community’s online quagmire, as I would like to call it, over the Right To Serve. As someone who has worked very closely with the campaign since the beginning, I have received my fair share of opposition from folks who do not support our efforts: Soulforce members, Veterans and people of the LGBT community at large. I respond to people on an individual basis and until this morning I felt that the discussions on online forums are those that are too distant from me and not something I was interested in engaging in. I finally read through many of the posts last night and I must say that it is bizarre to read about what happens to be my work (my life) on a discussion forum. What is even more bizarre is to see my peers highlight one other’s words to send personal attacks and something I simply cannot comprehend is how many of you are willing to disregard 65,000 of our brothers and sisters who are forced to live under the same conditions as the students who attend the schools the Equality Rides have targeted. Furthermore, I am ashamed at myself for allowing Haven to be the only voice rising from the Young Adult office. With that, I am here to offer what I can, in defense of what has become my life.

The Right to Serve Campaign took some time to sink into my mind as something that was okay. I, like many of you, have spent a good number of years of my activist life working towards peace and certainly working against the war in Iraq. I vividly remember the day that we invaded Iraq: I had a test in my Sustainable Development course and we thought for sure the test would be postponed and the class opened for discussion/ grieving. But alas the test came and so did the following years that have left us in a war that cannot, that will not end with a victory for anyone. Nothing but loss of life and dignity has come with our actions in Iraq. I get this.

I also understand that I have never asked anyone to join the military. I have never painted a pro-military picture for any of the participants of RTS. Our LGB brothers and sisters who stand up to enlist are very aware of the military; they are all people who have wanted to join and have been told that they are not worthy of serving because they are gay or bisexual. Do I enlist or even understand their desire to join the ranks of the Armed Force? No. But, I do very clearly understand the letters that we receive from cadets at military institutions from our around country, from overseas and from gay veterans who lived their military lives in silence. I read these letters with the same awe, confusion and later conviction that I read the letters from students who are trapped on the campuses of conservative Christian schools without a voice. The Equality Ride does not abandon them, why would we choose to abandon those in the military?

Thirteen years ago, when DADT was signed into law, I was 11. At that time my heart was set on becoming an environmental ecologist and I spent my summers at an ecology camp in Maine. I did not know that President Clinton had just signed a bill that said people like my Grandmother couldn’t serve in the military, and I certainly didn’t know that 13 years later, DADT would still be on our books, unquestioned by anything other than a few petitions and one lobbyist in DC. So, here I am. Graduated from college, 24 years old and working for Soulforce Young Adults. Now that I am no longer 11 and am aware of the political oppression of the LGBT community, do you suggest I wait until GWB is finished with Iraq? Shall I abandon all lessons in civil disobedience that I have learned from Soulforce, start a petition of my own? No, I will work within the mission of Soulforce and continue with our goals of “freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.”

I hope this finds you with peace and know that it comes from a place of love.
thank you,
Katie Higgins

Co-Director, Equality Ride '07
Equality Rider, '06
Soulforce Young Adults Director of Operations

[marutidas]

Perhaps their needs to be a redefinition of 'military' - starting with a new name - and a redesignation of its purposes and priorities. Perhaps by the military advocating and accepting of the GBLT enlistees, we can begin to rework the internals of the military organizations and focus on peacekeeping, assisting, aiding, helping, caring, etc. I believe those are the true priorities of this type of organization (military). Let's get rid of the weapons, the hierarchy, the abuse - lets have a true peacekeeping, peacemaking, peaceloving organization, which includes GLBT people.

Just some thoughts... Kara, hope you will stay around and continue to share the debate and discussion with us. that's how any major and great change begins - brainstorm, sharing, discussing, disagreeing, more brainstorming. You have much knowledge and experience and it would be a huge loss to have you leave and take that with you.

I could not agree more ,tdogg,
Instead of waging war, to nurture peace. Having humanitarian aid at the top of the new peace keepers mission. trianing them to be diplomats instead of soliders and train them to handle emegency situations delicately,trained to understand local culture, costums and language, to mediate disputes as a neutral party, but still working within a unit. I could live with that.

[kara speltz]

I love you, Kara.

Btw, I met you briefly when you were in Dallas with the Equality Riders. I brought MCC Austin's young adults up to join you all.

****
I just came across this article...

http://keyetv.com/local/local_story_302232832.html



"The Lieutenant speaks from his web site about the reasons the Bush administration gave for going to war and the difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war.

"People have asked me, 'Aren't you abandoning your troops by making the decision you've made?'" Watada says. "No, I'm not. The best way I can support my fellow soldiers and those under me is by helping to oppose an illegal war and helping end it."

.

Nathan: I do remember meeting you outside the conference in Dallas.

Watada is definately on of my heros. His courage to face serious jail time rather than continue to kill innocent people is awesome.

Kara

[NathanATX]

Why don't we create a nationwide campaign to encourage actions like Watadas?

[kara speltz]

Why don't we create a nationwide campaign to encourage actions like Watadas?

There are a number of folks doing that, but to me that would be much more in line with what I understand the Soulforce goals to be. kara

[NathanATX]

Is that something you would be willing to take on, even if RTS still went forward?

[kara speltz]

Is that something you would be willing to take on, even if RTS still went forward?

Dear Nathan: No, this process has been exhausting for me, and I don't believe I could take that on. Perhaps one of our younger, more energetic folks could. kara

[kara speltz]

I respond to people on an individual basis and until this morning I felt that the discussions on online forums are those that are too distant from me and not something I was interested in engaging in. I finally read through many of the posts last night and I must say that it is bizarre to read about what happens to be my work (my life) on a discussion forum. What is even more bizarre is to see my peers highlight one other’s words to send personal attacks and something I simply cannot comprehend is how many of you are willing to disregard 65,000 of our brothers and sisters who are forced to live under the same conditions as the students who attend the schools the Equality Rides have targeted.

Now that I am no longer 11 and am aware of the political oppression of the LGBT community, do you suggest I wait until GWB is finished with Iraq? Shall I abandon all lessons in civil disobedience that I have learned from Soulforce, start a petition of my own? No, I will work within the mission of Soulforce and continue with our goals of “freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.”

I hope this finds you with peace and know that it comes from a place of love.
thank you,
Katie Higgins

Co-Director, Equality Ride '07
Equality Rider, '06
Soulforce Young Adults Director of Operations

Dearest Katie: Please, please understand that there have been NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. What is being discussed is where priorities around nonviolence begin. You know how much I personally love and respect you, but a huge mistake is being made as I see it.

Let me start with a story that I've shared with Mel & Gary as to why I have taken this very public resignation position.

It was 1995, I was just finishing up my first year of Pastoral Ministry School that my pastor had sent me to. I was struggling because I hadn't been in school for decades and decades. Every friend of mine that I told that I was not going back supported me. Every one, but one woman I had been in a faith sharing group with.

She sat across the table from me and asked me, "so all this stuff about being called to the priesthood was bullshit?" I looked at her confused and said no why would you say that. She responded, "ever since I've known you, you've moaned and groaned about being called to the priesthood by God but not being able to because you're a woman. And now you're being offered an opportunity to be taught ministerial skills in a 3 year program and it's too hard for you. What do you think seminary would have been like?"

Of course, she was right, and when I graduated I called and thanked her again for her honest brutality. I'm blessed to have a number of friends like that in my life. Friends who tell you in love how they see you are not living up to the very best you CAN be.

Clearly within Soulforce there is a huge disagreement about this action. People have taken sides, but there has not been in the past enough real dialogue, particularly from an organization that is supposed to be committed to that dialogue.

What I cannot ignore is what I saw in Iraq during my two visits there. It is much more than 65,000 who are being oppressed it is genocide going on in that country being waged by our country. Are not the Iraqis as much my brothers and sisters as GLBTs? Is there absolute fight for survival less important than the Right to Serve? Not in my book.

Katie, you are probably the person I feel the closest to from the Equality Ride, please know that this is not a personal attack on anyone. It's calling into question where our priorities lie.

Kara

[Ellen]

Hold on, folks. You guys are talking about dialogue?! I distinctly remember asking on a conference call if those opposed to RTS want to hear what the "follow-up" to the Right To Serve campaign will look like... and the answer was NO. I hear a lot of people talking but no one listening. Everybody's made up their mind, wants to voice their opinion, and has drawn their (defensive) line in the sand.

Who has asked the questions that will shed light on Soulforce's continued involvement in the Right To Serve campaign? Who has asked what percentage of the 2007 Soulforce budget it will be? How many young Soulforce adults will be involved? How many want to enlist in one of the more peacekeeping-focused branches, such as the National Guard (and does the branch matter)? How might GLBT enlistees affect the nature of the U. S. military in 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? --and does that matter to Soulforcees who care about peace and justice in the world?

[Daniel]

Ellen- I hope you will keep in mind that most of your readers have no idea of the internal workings of Soulforce. Office politics- if one can call it that- are beside the point here. I thought we we talking here about the current Right to Serve policy and its relationship to Nonviolence.

While my posts on this issue have been somewhat (perhaps very) philosophical, one concrete circumstance has stuck in my mind. This past summer when several Soulforce members were arrested at recruiting centers (and this was reported in the news), I arrived at work and no less than three of my colleagues came up to me (they knew about my cyber involvment) and said, in effect, 'What's with that? An organization that follows the teachings of Gandhi is trying to get into the military?" These were smart people. They're gay. They 'get' the whole discrimination thing. What they didn't get why an organization that professed to the methods of nonviolence is knocking on the door of military. And assertions regarding how those involved did not actually recruit anyone was very much beside the point. In this case, the altruism of those involved was lost in translation.

You can put your hand in the cookie jar and not take a cookie, but you might as well have. That's how many people see this policy.

[Ellen]

This isn't office politics here, Daniel. (Wish that we had an office...) For me, this is about how Soulforce communicates the mission, vision, and purpose of its programs, both internally and publicly. The Right to Serve campaign gave folks mixed messages-- how can we avoid that in the future?

My understanding is that the Right To Serve campaign will move into some sort of lobbying phase. And perhaps that lobbying will be effective because we've had this "performance art" phase illustrating some of the military's flaws. (Then we can all shout "Mission Accomplished!"):rolleyes:

Maybe we should start a thread talking about some of the upcoming 2007 programs and forum users can help clarify our message!

[Daniel]

This isn't office politics here, Daniel. (Wish that we had an office...) For me, this is about how Soulforce communicates the mission, vision, and purpose of its programs, both internally and publicly. The Right to Serve campaign gave folks mixed messages-- how can we avoid that in the future?

My understanding is that the Right To Serve campaign will move into some sort of lobbying phase. And perhaps that lobbying will be effective because we've had this "performance art" phase illustrating some of the military's flaws. (Then we can all shout "Mission Accomplished!"):rolleyes:

Maybe we should start a thread talking about some of the upcoming 2007 programs and forum users can help clarify our message!

We disagree on the perception of these issues. My perception is that your earlier post said in effect "Why are you guys making a fuss about this when I gave you the opportunity? Why are you doing it now? You had your chance." That- as I understand it- is pure 'office politics'.

Of course, my perception is only that: my perception.

You ask me how mixed messages can be avoided and my answer is one that you will not want to hear: you can't manage how the message is received. I have 'issues'- as they say- with the policy and I see that I am not alone in that 'perception'. I don't see the wiggle room that others do regarding nonviolence methods.

Change or refine the policy. That's how one gets to the heart of mixed messages. One has to go back to the source. That's what I think anyway.

Of course, one doesn't lead an organization by taking a vote- does one? One does the best one can and let the chips fall where they may.

I may talk a great philosophical streak (ha!) regarding this issue ie nonviolence & the Right to Serve campaign which I would like to see changed, but another side of me is very aware that policies of this sort are difficult, if not impossible to change midcourse when great effort and resourses has been put into them. Everyone involved/invested wants to see the payoff. And that is to be expected. These things take on a life of their own.

[kara speltz]

You ask me how mixed messages can be avoided and my answer is one that you will not want to hear: you can't manage how the message is received. I have 'issues'- as they say- with the policy and I see that I am not alone in that 'perception'. I don't see the wiggle room that others do regarding nonviolence methods.

Change or refine the policy. That's how one gets to the heart of mixed messages. One has to go back to the source. That's what I think anyway.

Of course, one doesn't lead an organization by taking a vote- does one? One does the best one can and let the chips fall where they may.



Dear Daniel: One does the best one can, and at times mistakes are made. Acknowledging those mistakes is an important aspect. Clearly there are huge disagreements about this campaign. The process of ongoing discussion can only help us resolve those differences, in my opinion.

Kara

[ladyinred]

Dad was a 'nam vet, grew up knowing not much about it. Read about it ,concluded it was an unwarranted aggressive attack on the part of our government against Vietnam.. We were trying to push democracy down their throats and even supported the corrupted democracy there that didn't rule in their favor. Iraq , same thing , unwarranted aggression against a country who did not attack us and other than the tyranny of Saddaam Hussein over his people , he was really no threat to us. The unfortunate thing was that the American govt supported this oppressive tyrant before(our so called ally) , regardless of the cost and expense to the Iraqi people. While I promote peaceful resolutions and diplomacy whenever possible, I do feel if we are attacked by another country and if we have no other recourse ,we have the right to defend ourselves.( It's called self preservation) So I am not anti-military. Just like police officers have the right to defend themselves when their lives are being threatened or are trying to protect innocent civilians from violent criminals. Even though our goal should be to have more peaceful relations with other countries and eliminate the need for war whenever possible... Think of what would happen if we were attacked by another country who started aiming nukes at us...? But in terms of unwarranted aggressive tactics or occupation of other countries, no I don't support that.

[ladyinred]

The sad thing is that American govt has supported repressive regimes in the past.. Even the taliban..... The CIA helped train Osama Bin Laden..The Shah's secret police. If it weren't for the government's screwed up priorities and policies, alot of things could be avoided and alot of tragedy averted on both sides... I don't support Bush because I see his policies as self serving and his agenda for the American people and Iraqis way off track...

[ladyinred]

I think in order to stop violence and war globally, human beings from all walks of life,backrounds and religious and political affiliations would have to change their minds All countries would have to agree on cooperating to stop the aggression and violence .This is not a one sided endeavor that one country alone can accomplish. As long as you have Islamic fanatics who want to see the destruction of Israel and hate the jewish people for example, is it possible to alleviate the conflicts in that region... unless attitudes on both sides change? War is primitive yes... but can we stop it when a larger more powerful nation wants to engage in conquest and aggression toward other countries? Hitler was a prime example of this. What would have happened if he wasn't stopped? He even deceived other nations through peace treaties and such... What about countries who are aiding and abetting repressive regimes with blatant human rights abuses. I saw the Lord of wars and it showed how our government was even silently complicit in arms trafficking..Other articles how nations contribute to more bloodshed and violence in other ways. http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/students/events/gunrunners.php
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread137580/pg1
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/state_department/index.html?field=des&match=exact&adxnnl=1&query=ARMS%20SALES%20ABROAD&adxnnlx=1162889945-hjbgQUAW8J43Lq05PvOO0A
So what I'm saying it is not just the US side or complicity in all this it is other nations as well. In order to turn the tide to potential warfare, each nation would have to withdraw it's support from certain factions fighting each other, or countries who help promote terrorism and genocide, the list goes on. As long as you live in a barbaric world where the law of the jungle rules,rather than each nation helping to promote peace and cooperation among nations and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and other weapons for warfare, war will probrably be inevitable.As long as nations seek the conquest and domination of others it will prevail...As long as hatred of ethnic groups , people of other religious faiths exist, racial conflict, inner conflict between different tribal groups , the violence will continue.... Peace cannot be a unilateral effort on the part of any one country while others dissent or insist on tyranizing and oppressing others who are not sympathetic to their ideology or their views.We've had this throughout history... Different empires were established but eventually fell. So to stop wars we as a human species have to evolve and ensure that mutual destruction will stop and that we will work together to make it stop.

[Daniel]

I think in order to stop violence and war globally, human beings from all walks of life,backrounds and religious and political affiliations would have to change their minds All countries would have to agree on cooperating to stop the aggression and violence .This is not a one sided endeavor that one country alone can accomplish.

When the biggest guy (with the biggest guns) in the room starts talking peace and laying down his weapons (and that's us), then we'll be getting somewhere. Yes. We would have to all agree. That's my point exactly.

Time to set an example that really means something.

[kara speltz]

When the biggest guy (with the biggest guns) in the room starts talking peace and laying down his weapons (and that's us), then we'll be getting somewhere. Yes. We would have to all agree. That's my point exactly.

Time to set an example that really means something.

Dear Daniel: I so, so, agree with you. We threaten Iran and Korea, because they want to have what we have: nuclear weapons. The American government truly believes they have a right to tell other governments that they can not maintain nuclear weapons, while we hold the biggest stockpile of all, and are the ONLY nation to have used them on another people. What arrogance is that?

As my friend Jim Loney said in his beautiful reflection upon his release from being held captive in Iraq - that he was in the midst of a paradox being a peace activist rescued by the armed forces, but that still didn't change what Jesus said about loving our enemy and turning the other cheek. Somehow those of us who claim to follow Jesus, think that he really didn't mean that. But Gandhi, knew he did.

It has to start somewhere this madness, let it begin with us.

Kara

[ladyinred]

I totally agree with you about dictating to other countries about what they should do,while we maintain our "military superiority" over them. My ex husband is moslem and fortunately I had the opportunity to learn something about their culture and the way they think.And he would say the same thing you all have.
But the fact is we've even in the past, before the war ,caused suffering for the Iraqi people with sanctions that limited humanitarian aid and food supply
. He asked why is the US government punnishing the Iraqi people for the mis-deeds of Saddam Hussein. He said those sanctions didn't affect Saddam one bit. http://www.michaeldhiggins.ie/1Hotpresspublication.htm ( A past article written on these sanctions.
Kara, I live in a state that is predominately republican and supports Bush. Last night I watched as a crowd of 18,000 stood up an applauded George Bush as he justifies his reasons for invading Iraq. But why are people so -shorted sighted? They estimate that 2500 American troops have died and that is tragic in itself but the tow on Iraqi lives is much higher estimated at over 100,000(last time I heard but probably much higher now.) And they are suffering from all sorts of hardships, due to their infrastructure being destroyed,lack of electricity, food supply among other things.
Why are the American people so impervious about the suffering being inflicted on others while we mourn our own casualities? It is really tragic for both sides. Are we so inhuman and debased as a society that we enjoy endorsing inhumanity toward other nations or people of different ethnic backrounds, faiths and races? American people don't get to see the news over there or pictures of children who were killed with their brains hanging out of their heads and other horrors.
The problem with this country we have a one-sided mentality and are arrogant enough to think we know it all , what is best for other countries and how they should live for example (While hardly providing that example to others).We like to think of ourselves a morally superior and often have an over-inflated sense of self importance. And in the meantime the cruelty we inflict on other people of other nations is justified in the name of patriotism.

Americans shouldn't stand for that. If we want to be true patriots we should not only think about our own selfish interests , we should respect the rights of others as well. So you are absolutely on the mark when you denounce the hypocrisy of this govt. I agree with you that this causes resentment among other nations whoe feel like the US is bullying them into submission and wanting to further it's own interests at the expense of their people. The same thing happened with India when Britsh occupied their country. Of course the British didn't get it at the time that they had stripped the Indian people of their dignity and rights and robbing the land of their resources and making arbitrary laws that favored the British and worked against the Indian people. The extent of human selfishness and greed is unconscionable but we defend it in the name of Americas interests and we call our actions "moral" in defense of them.:love: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1499654 an article on why they hate us...(For being so wonderful?)

[ladyinred]

http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/whydopeoplehateus.htm http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/whydopeoplehateus.htm#crushdemocracy

OOPS!! I guess the US Govt doesn't think the golden rule applies to them either.:( :eek: :sick:

Below article on Iran:We Had a Democracy Once, But You Crushed It
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

In yesterday's Washington Post, Condoleeza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, writes the following: "Our task is to work with those in the Middle East who seek progress toward greater democracy, tolerance, prosperity and freedom. As President Bush said in February, 'The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.'" Now, if we only had a nickel for every time Bush, or Rice, or Colin Powell, or Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney or Richard Perle or Donald Rumsfeld talked about bringing democracy to the Middle East. Talk, talk, talk. Here's something you can bet on: Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz will not hold a press conference this month to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U.S.-led coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran -- Mohammed Mossadegh. Rice and Powell won't hold a press conference to celebrate Operation Ajax, the CIA plot that overthrew the Mossadegh. That was 50 years ago this month, in August 1953. That's when Mossadegh was fed up with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company -- now BP -- pumping Iran's oil and shipping the profits back home to the United Kingdom. And Mossadegh said -- hey, this is our oil, I think we'll keep it. And Winston Churchill said -- no you won't. Mossadegh nationalized the company -- the way the British were nationalizing their own vital industries at the time. But what's good for the UK ain't good for Iran. If you fly out of Dulles Airport in Virginia, ever wonder what the word Dulles means? It stands for the Dulles family -- Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, the CIA director, Allen Dulles. They were responsible for the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran. As was President Theodore Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent who traveled to Iran to pull off the coup. Now why should we be concerned about a coup that happened so far away almost 50 years ago this month? New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer puts it this way: "It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York." Kinzer has written a remarkable new book, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (Wiley, 2003). In it, he documents step by step, how Roosevelt, the Dulles boys and Norman Schwarzkopf Sr., among a host of others, took down a democratically elected regime in Iran. They had freedom of the press. We shut it down. They had democracy. And we crushed it. Mossadegh was the beacon of hope for the Middle East. If democracy were allowed to take hold in Iran, it probably would have spread throughout the Middle East. We asked Kinzer - what does the overthrow of Mossadegh say about the United States respect for democracy abroad? "Imagine today what it must sound like to Iranians to hear American leaders tell them -- 'We want you to have a democracy in Iran, we disapprove of your present government, we wish to help you bring democracy to your country.' Naturally, they roll their eyes and say -- "We had a democracy once, but you crushed it,'" he said. "This shows how differently other people perceive us from the way we perceive ourselves. We think of ourselves as paladins of democracy. But actually, in Iran, we destroyed the last democratic regime the country ever had and set them on a road to what has been half a century of dictatorship." After ousting Mossadegh, the United States put in place a brutal Shah who destroyed dissent and tortured the dissenters. And the Shah begat the Islamic revolution. During that Islamic revolution in 1979, Iranians held up Mossadegh's picture, telling the world - we want a democratic regime that resists foreign influence and respects the will of the Iranian people as expressed through democratic institutions. "They were never able to achieve that. And this has led many Iranians to react very poignantly to my book," Kaizer told us. "One woman sent me an e-mail that said - 'I was in tears when I finished your book because it made me think of all we lost and all we could have had.'" Of course, the overthrow of Mossadegh was only one of the first U.S. coups of democratically elected regime. (To see one in movie form, pick up a copy of Raoul Peck's Lumumba, now on DVD.) Kinzer's previous books include Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala. He's thinking of putting together a boxed set of his books on American coups. Get copies of Bitter Fruit and All The Shah's Men. Read them. And the next time a politician talks about spreading democracy around the globe, ask them about Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org). (c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Few Interesting Statistics

LETTER FROM SPRINGFIELD, MO
Dick, our Gannett newspaper (News-Leader) published a three part series starting last Sunday on the topic "America's Mixed Image Abroad." While info was not new here, it did show enough of our behavior to raise quetions in people's minds who had not considered we might be hated. I've often thought a few statistics, repeated until really heard, like --the UN report that more than three-fourths of the world's population live in poverty, (one-half on less thatn $2 a day), the US has less than 5% of the world's population, yet consumes roughly one-third of the the world's resources --US sells more than half of the world's military equipment --our military budget alongside our "altruistic" budget --and something about our hottest trouble spot--Israel and Palestine would be an effective tool. Joan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ladyinred]

Drum rolls please.. And the vote is in!!! Corporate oligarchy and greed rules over the common good and the interests and rights of the American people and those abroad... Yeeeeeeeesh.:( :eek: Whoever said greed is good ,ought have his butt kicked.

[ladyinred]

I would urge everyone to read this article,it is somewhat dated, but will give you alot of insight. http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=41&num=4212
http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=41&num=4820

[kara speltz]

I totally agree with you about dictating to other countries about what they should do,while we maintain our "military superiority" over them. My ex husband is moslem and fortunately I had the opportunity to learn something about their culture and the way they think.And he would say the same thing you all have.
But the fact is we've even in the past, before the war ,caused suffering for the Iraqi people with sanctions that limited humanitarian aid and food supply
. He asked why is the US government punnishing the Iraqi people for the mis-deeds of Saddam Hussein. He said those sanctions didn't affect Saddam one bit.


I have been to Iraq twice since the war began, and have been deeply touched by the Iraqi people. According to some reports the sanctions we imposed on the Iraqi people were responsible for almost a half a million Iraqi children dying over the ten years they were imposed. That sounds like genocide to me.

But despite the sanctions, despite the bombings, the Iraqi's consistently welcomed us wherever we went, even taking care of our own wounded, in a town where Americans had just destroyed their hospital! I suspect Iraqi understand much better than we, that governments do not represent the people. Can you remember right after 9/11 how the vast majority of Americans responded to anyone of the Muslim faith? Even Hindu's were attacked because people couldn't tell the difference.

It is this bond to the Iraqi people, that keeps me from supporting RTS at this time in history. Whatever discrimination we LGBTs may experience here in the U.S. it doesn't hold a candle to what the Iraqi people are experiencing at this time.

Kara

[revtj]

I am concerned that W & Co. are going to get away with the setting aside of the Geneva Accords and establish precedent for torture at the whim of the US President. This is about the most horrific thing America could allow. I believe he MUST be held accountable for the torture and the use of OUR GOVERNMENT to try and get away with it.

If America does not make a resounding final NO to torture then we lose our place as leaders in the global community (if that hasn't happened already!) and we put our own soldiers in an awful position.

It still bothers me that Nixon got pardoned because America never came to grips with the idea that the executive branch is not above the law. Back then, it was about American political corruption. Not this. Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld should be held accountable for the good of Planet Earth.

This is the most important moral issue of our time to me.

[1engelbythesea]

:'( A house divided does not stand ... but as Gandhi said when you find a greater truth you must be faithful to it.
I think we need to listen to each other, honor our differences and remember the purpose of the organization. :pray: Light always dispells darkness, let us stay in the light.
Nora's dos centavos:love:

[1engelbythesea]

War is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves. -Leo Tolstoy, novelist and philosopher
(1828-1910)

[Daniel]

It's Thursday night and my husband and I are watching the Gay Cable News on our local MNN station- channell 34 at 11PM.

There has been a discussion about Soulforce's recent action at Times Square. In brief, here's the upshot: the younger member of the panel (Doug Jennings- an activist from Utah- age 19) thought the action and policy echoed that of earlier 'in-your-face' methods- specifically that of ACT-UP. He thought it was an interesting way to address discrimination. That said, he wondered if anyone was listening to the message considering current circumstances ie the war. An older member of the panel (Andy Humm- 50 something) related how peace activists had called him- agast that gay people were trying to get into the military.

While these two views may not be indicative of anything more than the views of the presenters, I do think they represent commonly held positions. Positions which are in conflict. It should come as no surprise that there is a divergence of views here.

One thing stood out in my mind from the conversation.

Timing is everything.

[kara speltz]

It's Thursday night and my husband and I are watching the Gay Cable News on our local MNN station- channell 34 at 11PM.

There has been a discussion about Soulforce's recent action at Times Square. In brief, here's the upshot: the younger member of the panel (Doug Jennings- an activist from Utah- age 19) thought the action and policy echoed that of earlier 'in-your-face' methods- specifically that of ACT-UP. He thought it was an interesting way to address discrimination. That said, he wondered if anyone was listening to the message considering current circumstances ie the war. An older member of the panel (Andy Humm- 50 something) related how peace activists had called him- agast that gay people were trying to get into the military.

While these two views may not be indicative of anything more than the views of the presenters, I do think they represent commonly held positions. Positions which are in conflict. It should come as no surprise that there is a divergence of views here.

One thing stood out in my mind from the conversation.

Timing is everything.

Dear Daniel: Timing is everything - and that's a fact. Had this campaign started in a time of peace, I suspect there would be much less disagreement with it. Or, if perhaps the youth had chosen the Coast Guard solely as a target, that too might have abated some of the critique.

We clearly have at least two different camps on this issue. And we're having a hard time communicating with each other, but at least we're attempting the communication.

It's a subject that I suspect there may never be absolute agreement on, but trying to find the places we do agree on, is the start, I suspect.

Kara

[Daniel]

Dear Daniel: Timing is everything - and that's a fact. Had this campaign started in a time of peace, I suspect there would be much less disagreement with it. Or, if perhaps the youth had chosen the Coast Guard solely as a target, that too might have abated some of the critique.


Kara- Hadn't thought about the Coast Guard angle. That's interesting. Though, as I posted to Nathan early on in this thread, I don't think a peace time effort would make me feel any different. I just don't see the need for war, guns and ways to annihilate each other with nuclear bombs. I believe this is something we all understand and desire, we just don't know how to get there. In short: we don't have a plan. Is this not the heart of nonviolence?

[kara speltz]

Kara- Hadn't thought about the Coast Guard angle. That's interesting. Though, as I posted to Nathan early on in this thread, I don't think a peace time effort would make me feel any different. I just don't see the need for war, guns and ways to annihilate each other with nuclear bombs. I believe this is something we all understand and desire, we just don't know how to get there. In short: we don't have a plan. Is this not the heart of nonviolence?

Dear Daniel: There's a place I agree with you. In the best of all possible worlds...... And, of course, if it were not the American military, which has so often been such an oppressive force throughout the world.....

Clearly, I'm personally ambiguous around the military, to say the least. And as I tried to come to some understanding around this issue, I spoke with all sorts of folks. The Lawsons, our civil rights heros have varying positions on the military. Jim Lawson went to prison rather than serve in the military. His brother Phil enlisted as a non-combatant. I spoke with both of them and spent a great deal of time reflecting on what each said. Eventually, I felt that joining as a non-combatant only meant that someone else was freed up to carry a gun. So I ended up in the Jim Lawson end of the spectrum.

These are such complex issues. Clearly my visits to Iraq left an indellible mark on me that means, I'll probably never be the same having seen war up close. It never was an easy black or white issue. But my time in Iraq clearly left me in a much stronger anti-military position. But again, the continued discussion is always helpful to me. I really do want to be able to comprehend how people who consider themselves to be nonviolent can support this particular campaign. I listen, and listen, but it still makes no sense to me.

Kara

[Daniel]

Clearly my visits to Iraq left an indellible mark on me that means, I'll probably never be the same having seen war up close. It never was an easy black or white issue. But my time in Iraq clearly left me in a much stronger anti-military position. But again, the continued discussion is always helpful to me. I really do want to be able to comprehend how people who consider themselves to be nonviolent can support this particular campaign. I listen, and listen, but it still makes no sense to me.

Kara- Just curious- if you don't mind me asking: what made you gravitate towards a stronger anti-war stance- that is- based on what you saw and experienced in Iraq?

It may be hubris on my part, but I think I do understand how people can support this particular compaign. Whatever the argument for it, my observation is that they all have one root which could be expressed as a 'yes-but'.

If pressed, I think everyone involved would say (to borrow your words) 'In the best of all possible worlds', violence, guns and war are bad bad bad. We need to and should put and end to it.

This is not hard to agree too, right? That's the yes part. But, when push comes to shove, we honestly believe that we must do a complex calculus to make this 'best thought' viable. In essence, this but says: I really really really DO need my weapons. Someone might attack me. I must have a way to defend myself"

These are thoughts which we take for granted for the most part. The very same thoughts which create weapons, both mental and material. And we can't (or won't) let go of them.

I see the RTS policy as playing into this 'yes-but' kind of thinking. "Yes- I know that war and violence is bad bad bad, but gay people are being discriminated against and we must do something about that." That, in a nutshell is how I see the 'logic' of it- which seems totally illogical to me. [I]It is a policy which is divided (though well-meant) against itself because the thinking that produces it is divided: it wants to have it both ways. It was to hold on to loving and fearful thoughts simutaneously.

Of course, there are those who follow a line of thinking that gives a pass to war and violence and all that follows it. (I think it was Augustine who thought up the idea of a just war- he made it 'ok' for the flock to stray from the core teachings of Christ.) In response, I say: what does nonviolence have to do with that? What does this have to do with the teachings of Christ or Buddha? Or that which inspired Gandhi or King?

Makes no sense to me either.

We have to realize we are 'holding the gun' in order to lay it down. Right now we think we have a right to keep it. When are we going to realize that is madness?

[kara speltz]

Kara- Just curious- if you don't mind me asking: what made you gravitate towards a stronger anti-war stance- that is- based on what you saw and experienced in Iraq?

Iraq became personal to me in my meeting Iraqi people and visiting places that had just been destroyed by American bombs. I was passionately opposed to the war in Vietnam too, but there's a different depth to this war for me because I met so many Iraqi people who were suffering and still are.



We have to realize we are 'holding the gun' in order to lay it down. Right now we think we have a right to keep it. When are we going to realize that is madeness?

I want to share with you my friend Jim Loney's reflection after being held captive for 4 months in Iraq. He said:

"I am confronted with a great paradox. I, the Christian pacifist peacemaker, am alive, am free because of the very institutions I believe are contrary to Christian teaching.

"Christ teaches us to love our enemies, do good to those who harm us, pray for those who persecute us. He calls us to accept suffering before we inflict injury. He calls us to pick up the cross and to lay down the sword.

"We will most certainly fail in this call. I did. And I'll fail again. This does not change Christ's teaching that violence itself is the tomb, violence is the dead end.

"Peace won through the barrel of a gun might be a victory, but it is not peace. Our captors have guns and they ruled over us. Our rescuers had bigger guns and ruled over our captors. We were freed, but the rule of the gun stayed.

I'm learning that there are many kinds of prisons and many kinds of tombs. Prisons of the mind, the heart, the body. Tombs of despair, fear confusion. Tombs within tombs and prisons within prisons.

"There are no easy answers. We must all find our way through a broken world, struggling with the paradox of call and failure. My captivity and rescue have helped me to catch a glimpse of how powerful the force of Resurrection is. God seeks us wherever we are, reaches for us in whatever darkness we inhabit. May we reach for each other with the same persistence. The tomb is not the final word."

Ultimately, that says it all for me. Every time we resort to the gun, as I see it, we say, some how that Jesus really didn't expect us to follow his lead.

Kara

[revtj]

Powerful stuff Kara...chills me to the bone.

I had a horrible thought: What if the draft is re-enstated by a democratic congress?

I was thinking about this...we do not have enough troops for this shameful mess we have created. The draft makes sense from a military standpoint right now.

So...the Dems first revoke 'don't ask, don't tell,' then restart the draft...

Please tell me I'm wrong. A friend said no way because we'd have the 60s-70s style civil disobedience all over again...that made the idea more attractive to me!

In case it's not clear I DO NOT SUPPORT it. But I am so cynical about both political parties in America now, it seems plausible to me this could happen.

[kara speltz]

Powerful stuff Kara...chills me to the bone.

I had a horrible thought: What if the draft is re-enstated by a democratic congress?

I was thinking about this...we do not have enough troops for this shameful mess we have created. The draft makes sense from a military standpoint right now.

So...the Dems first revoke 'don't ask, don't tell,' then restart the draft...

Please tell me I'm wrong. A friend said no way because we'd have the 60s-70s style civil disobedience all over again...that made the idea more attractive to me!

In case it's not clear I DO NOT SUPPORT it. But I am so cynical about both political parties in America now, it seems plausible to me this could happen.

I'm in an in between space around the draft and I'll explain why. First during the VN war, I need to say I was totally opposed to it, and even participated in some draft board actions.

But I have heard some arguments made that the draft would equalize who get's put in the front lines. Let me explain, the National Guard is where folks who have no money to pay for their education go to get an education. Rich folks don't need to do that. So perhaps we'd find more sons and daughters of politicians facing Iraq, if there was one. At least that's some folks belief. I hear that argument and walk a fine line. And if there had been no draft in terms of VN I do believe that the population might have sat on their proverbial (you know what:( ).

It's very complex that's for sure. And it feels a bit illogical when I put it into writing! Yikes I wish things were as simple as I thought back when I was 20. Kara

[Daniel]

TO say that GLBT people who wish to serve don't deserve our support because their military aspirations don't measure up to our pacifist ideals is ... I'm sorry... its arrogant.

David- with all do respect I think you make an error here. For one thing, nonviolence is not about pacifism which a little study of the subject and it's methods will reveal.

And you call into question the motivations of those who oppose RTS, calling those who do arrogant. I find this tactic all too convenient. It's a very wide brush you are using here.

ar·ro·gant (?r'?-g?nt)
adj.
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.

I've posted a fair number of posts on the RST policy from various vantage points. Are they all arrogant? And if so, how?

How exactly does working for a world where there are no guns and bombs make me, or anyone else with the commitment- for that's what it is- to actual and sustainable nonviolence, arrogant? From my point of view, you assume that just because there are those who want to join a military and kill people (that's what they do in wars) we should all say "Ok....I'll support that." I'm not saying I have a better view of things just because I like to hear myself saying it- and I don't see that pointing out the sheer insanity of war makes me arrogant. You could call me a nut case who is idealistic and naive, but arrogant? I don't think so.

Buckin' for a better world isn't a bad thing in my book.

This matter goes way beyond gay people and isn't about liberals or conservatives.

It's about who lives and who dies and what kind of world SF is working towards.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Having said that, I think to say that Soulforce shouldn't take up the cause of GLBT people who wish to serve their country because it might look like we support the war or because military service contradicts our non-violent principles is arrogant.

TO say that GLBT people who wish to serve don't deserve our support because their military aspirations don't measure up to our pacifist ideals is ... I'm sorry... its arrogant.
Sigh. Well, at least I'm starting to really understand how King caught all kinds of hell (even from liberals) for telling young people who were called to military service to go to jail rather than go to Vietnam.

Speaking for myself, I'm not here to fight discrimination wherever it exists. What I want to fight against, and what I call others to fight against, is injustice, of which there are various levels. We gay Americans are discriminated against via DADT, and that is a big injustice. Yet the destruction that the U.S. military engages in is often a much greater injustice. Therefore it is out of conviction and concern for those that are even more oppressed that I take the stand of not supporting any Soulforce action where volunteers attempt to enlist in the U.S. military during an unjust war.

They don't sing "This little light of mine" in the U.S. Marine Corps. And though there are many, many good and brave men and women in the military, it is too convient for them (or more importantly us) to just blame the current administration for the military's use.

[Willy]

I am brand new to this website, and am glad I found this thread. It addresses a question that was running around in my head this morning after I registered on this site, namely: These Soulforce people give every appearance of being pacifists, so what's with them and their "Right to Serve" campaign?

I'll take this from a few different angles, and hope you'll bear with me as I do it.

First, you've got the symbols wrong. I have seen some of the coverage of attempts by Soulforce members to enlist while simultaneously declaring their sexual orientation. Those attempts have come across to me as non-credible. You don't need to look like G.I. Joe or G.I. Jane to be a good soldier, airman, sailor or marine, but those who have tried to enlist have struck me as so non-military in their bearing that even I, a gay male, have found it difficult to suppress a chuckle when watching the coverage.

Demonstrations are inherently symbolic. If you want to persuade people, then you should at least present potential enlistees who are credible in the eyes of those watching the event. Don't make people have to deal with gender roles AND the military ban. Give them one issue to deal with, not two, and a gender role issue that misrepresents the reality of gay service members while undermining their cause. In short: Butch it up, people. Your target audience is laughing at you.

Secondly, the Iraq War is irrelevant to the larger question of someone should be permitted to serve even if their homosexuality becomes known to others. I oppose the Iraq War but I favor including openly gay people in the military, and see no contradiction between those viewpoints.

Thirdly, pacifism in general is highly relevant. If Soulforce is indeed a pacifist group like, say, the Quakers or the Mennonites, who were conscientious objectors in World War II, then Soulforce is simply the wrong group to be agitating for the "Right to Serve." There are plenty of other equity issues that affect gay people; I'm sorry, but a pacifist organization that's trying to secure the right of people to join the military doesn't pass the common-sense test. You will undermine the case in the public's eyes.

A related point: If Soulforce members want gays to be able to join the military out of a belief that gays will somehow moderate the military's militarism (* see end note), then you're WAY off track. You see, those who oppose gays in the military argue, among other things, that our kind won't fight as hard as straights. That's not true and never had been.

Fourthly, I want to talk about my own attitudes about war. I do this as someone who has not only known many active, reserve and retired military personnel both gay and straight, but as someone who once came very close to becoming a Marine Corps officer himself. Why I chose not to do it is irrelevant here, other than to say that I backed out for reasons having nothing to do with my homosexuality or any pacifism on my part.

Here is what I think: War is always the result of human failure. It is always someone's fraud, and the fraud usually extends to both sides. It is therefore difficult, at best, to talk about war in terms of a "just war" and an "unjust war." Usually, those attempts are little but convenient justifications for someone's own contradictory, and often fraudulent, judgments.

This doesn't mean I'm a pacifist. Far from it. Even though I think war is a failure, a fraud and full of unspeakable horror, I think we human beings live in a world that's full of paradox. One of them is that war is evil yet can be entirely necessary at a particular time and place. I also think that the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it, which raises all kinds of issues about inherent conflicts between military and civilian values and practices. No one ever said life is simple.

I have yet to meet someone who's been in combat who is anything other than anti-war. Not necessarily in the larger political context, but always in the small-bore sense of someone who has seen war up close and finds it horrifying. Thus, I've never been one to engage in the tempting broad-brush statements about war mongers, immoral wars and the like. To me, the worst "war mongers" are often those who never saw combat. They're usually the ones you'll hear talking about the glory and the grand horizons. "Moral wars" tend to be that way as a result of our blindness to the other's side's truths.

I respect pacifism, but I want it to be honestly arrived at. I am suspicious, to put it mildly, of someone who discovers pacifism when (s)he opposes a war that happens to be championed by a political opponent. The Quakers and the Mennonites have my respect. Lt. Watada does not. He signed up for service, not for service in the wars that pass his unique moral test. He has committed an act of civil disobedience, and for that I think he ought to be prepared to pay the consequences.

As for Kara, this is someone I don't personally know, so everyone can rest assured that the following is in no way personal: Isn't it just a little late for you to have arrived at the viewpoint that you say has led to your resignation?

Finally (at last), my conclusion is this: Soulforce ought to decide whether, as an organization, it is pacifist. If it is, then get out of the "Right to Serve" campaign. If not, then continue as you are, but the next time you appear at a Marine Corps recruiting station at least try to enlist someone who looks like they could be a marine someday. And those Soulforce members who are pacifists should stay away from the "Right to Serve" campaign.

(* "Perhaps by the military advocating and accepting of the GBLT enlistees, we can begin to rework the internals of the military organizations and focus on peacekeeping, assisting, aiding, helping, caring, etc. I believe those are the true priorities of this type of organization (military). Let's get rid of the weapons, the hierarchy, the abuse - lets have a true peacekeeping, peacemaking, peaceloving organization, which includes GLBT people." - tdogg, post #29)

[Jamie McDaniel]

The Quakers and the Mennonites have my respect. Lt. Watada does not. He signed up for service, not for service in the wars that pass his unique moral test. He has committed an act of civil disobedience, and for that I think he ought to be prepared to pay the consequences.
Willy, I am glad that you oppose the Iraq war, yet I am saddened that you do not respect Lt. Watada. I do believe we need a military (albeit a much more peace keeping one with a budget that is not out of control) and a police force to prevent lawlessness. However I want service members of conscience, men and women who will not just blindly follow orders. I know that goes against the military mindset of the "chain of command." Lt. Watada has my full respect for refusing orders to go to Iraq. I've spent some time on his website (http://www.thankyoult.org/) and I just donated $100 to his defense fund. I hope others will join me in offering their support. He is facing multiple years of prison for his courageous stand.

[Willy]

This is the season for paradoxes, I guess. We just had this Haggard guy, the anti-gay minister, turn out to be snorting meth with a hustler. At the same time, we've got a group of gay pacifists showing up at recruiting centers trying to join the military, and then turning around and agitating on behalf of military officers who disobey their deployment orders. What's next, a president who interprets the wholesale defeat of his party in midterm elections as a mandate to send more troops?

This is no time to be logical. It would only spoil everyone's fun. :confused:

[Willy]

Since when is Soulforce a group of gay pacifists? Soulforce is an organization that advocates non-violent action in support of equality for GLBT folk who are suffering from religion based bigotry.
Fair enough. Maybe I haven't read enough about Soulforce.

It is appropriate for a military person to disobey orders that he/she believes to be immoral or illegal. That principal was upheld by the United States at Nuremburg. In fact, a soldier has a DUTY to oppose immoral or illegal orders. So... it is appropriate for Capt. W. to disobey his orders if he believes they are unlawful or immoral. It is appropriate for the Army to prosecute him. It is appropriate for Jamie to send him money for his defense fund. and It is appropriate for Willy to demand that Capt. W be prepared to pay the price for his convictions.

Now... Is everybody happy?;)
Actually, it's appropriate to disobey orders that are illegal, not that someone merely believes illegal. Someone's belief, plus a buck and a half, will them a cup of coffee at Starbucks. If someone disobeys an order on the grounds that it is illegal they'd better be correct, and in the meantime they damn well better be prepared to pay the price. I look at Watada and I see someone who's not interested in paying any prices, and who in fact might be primarily interested in joining Cindy Sheehan on the protest circuit.

Regardless of what he might be telling himself and others, Watada's objection isn't to the order's legality or its morality. There is nothing illegal or immoral about a deployment order. Watada opposes the war; he has a political objection to it.

Some liberals -- certainly not all -- are backing Watada because they also have political objections to the war. They invoke morality and legality because, in political discourse, phrasing an objection in such terms adds emphasis to a viewpoint while seeking to rise above mere political argument. Being an American who'd rather call things by their real names, I reject that kind of sophistry. I don't care how saintly it appears, or more to the point, how saintly it is designed to appear. I regard Watada's invocations of morality and legality as cheesy dodges that, in fact, disrespect the principles he invokes.

I'm not sure if I'm a liberal. I tell people that it's not me who has changed, but the country. George W. Bush made a liberal out of me, I guess. That said, I have a very different view of Watada and his actions. Beware the falling shoe, I say, because it just might fit on the other foot. What would people here have said about right-wing soldiers (who, I might add, greatly outnumber their liberal counterparts) who might have discovered a "belief" that President Clinton's peacekeeping mission in Bosnia was "illegal" or "immoral?" I'll tell you what they'd say: It's all politics. And they'd have been correct, just as those who point to Watada and say the same thing are correct.

Refusing an order to mistreat a prisoner -- something that U.S. military members have in fact done, as reported in Thomas Ricks's outstanding book, Fiasco -- is a world away from a lieutenant refusing to deploy because a particular war suddenly fails to meet his standards. One refusal is both moral and legal, while the other is political. I don't want military members making political decisions with respect to their orders, even if I might agree with a particular member's politics. That is a slippery slope, and as I look around the United States I already see more slippery slopes than a Texas water park.

[Willy]

Sheesh! a buck and a half? I can't ever get outa there for under 4 bucks
Hey man, I was talking about a cup o'joe, not a double tall half skinny mocha latte double-whipped frappucino with the 24 kt gold sprinkles on top. :)

[Willy]

Try roasting your own. It's surprisingly easy. It must be, for me to figure it out. :)

http://www.sweetmarias.com/

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's a bit of news I stumbled across this weekend:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/18/meehan_targeting_dont_ask_dont_tell/

Steven Webster

[rainbowdog]

I know where you are coming from. I was not a part of the 60's and the Vietanam War because I was not born until 1973. But I am a Hippie who just happens to be gay. My parents call me their flower child. These war in Iraq is senseless and illegal. But look who is our president, that war-thirsty Bush who is also against GBLT rights. People over in Iraq are getting kill everyday. Here in the U.S. there are GBLTs getting murdered too. It is a no win situation. How many of our souldiers have to die before our troops pull out? How many GBLTs have to get killed before our society accepts us. We are not just battling one war (WAR in Iraq) but we are in a war here on the homefront and that is us, the GBLT community. ALL WE CAN DO IS PRAY FOR PEACE.:pray:

God Bless,
Christy

[Bearnabas]

I'm new to Soulforce too. I've known about it and watched it for about a year, but only joined recently. And over the last two or three days--become active on the forums.

I don't like the war. I don't want to join the military. I come from a family whose members--immediate family and cousins,etc--have served in the military. I respect them and their choice. It's not mine because, frankly, I'd make a lousy soldier. Always questioning orders, rethinking strategies, not really cool with being yelled at during basic training--that's me.

But my sister who joined the Navy reserves found opportunity. Burdened with a Learning Disability that made reading difficult and comprehension nearly impossible, she believed she was flawed, less-than, and she resigned herself to a job she didn' t like because she felt incapable of making a change. Our father had been a SCPO in the Navy and when she decided to one day sign up for the Navy reserves, it opened doors for her that had never been opened before. Was I scared that she would be sent to Iraq? Yes. Did I want to kidnap her and escape to Canada? Yes. But I saw a change in her--a newfound self-respect in her--when, finally, others in authority saw that she had abilities that went far beyond what she had been recognized for (and I'm not talking about firiing a gun at civilians or torture). The military thought she was intelligent and had a good critical head on her shoulders.

We've all heard about the freedoms this country has because of an active military. If I go on about it, I'll lose everyone who got this far in my message. But there are good things about a military, about just wars, about protection. If we need to remember the wars we had to fight for independence because diplomacy would never work for a colony against her mother country, then let's stop and remember. I'm not advocating war, but I am saying that fighting for what you believe is a concept that has
served the country well in many effective--albeit violent--ways.

I agree with Mel White: this is not an issue about whether you support war. It IS an issue over whether you support the dignity of each individual to make that choice. If you support the rights for gay people to have children, get married, follow their dreams--will you then turn around and DENY them the ability to serve this country? Wouldn't that be MORE discrimination against gays who want to serve? Wouldn't that be more indignity to say that gays shouldn't do what they want? Are we taking over the position of the conservative administration and the conservative branch of the church to tell gays what they CAN and CANNOT do.

All Soulforce seems to be doing is giving people the right to have the choice. It is not a statement on the choice itself. This is not a group against war--just against violent expressions towards discrimination. This is not MLK versus Vietnam, but MLK versus Malcolm X. Soulforce is trying to peacably win RIGHTS for GLBT people, not win the right not to be at war at all. That's a different and respectable battle. But it's not Soulforce's--according to the principles of the founders and the goals on the website.

I would also say that telling young men to "butch it up" for military service is demeaning to gay men. If these men want to join the military then they should join, regardless of whether someone thinks they are manly enough. Boy, enough of us here know exactly what that feels like. And we don't want it from our friends too. Men are weeded out of the military because they can't cut it. If these men who aren't butch enough are able to make it through training, then let them serve. If not, then they will leave of their own accord. But Soulforce is trying to give them a CHOICE, which they don't have.

I respect Kara's decision. I respect the people who are against the war. I AM against the war. What I don't respect is the fighting on this site when maybe we should be focussed on a mission to help gays whenever they are oppressed for whatever reason. The discussion here on this thread has turned into "for and against" war--a question of pacifistic principle, not an issue any more about the rights of those who want to serve.

My sister was forced to leave the military. I have mixed feelings. While I am happy that she will not be going overseas, I have seen my sister become a shell. She is turned inward, lost a lot of hope. Her husband could not stand not being the focus of her life, and felt like the education and experience she was getting with the military was somehow leaving him behind. He worried she would find a better man. He feared an abandonment that would not have happened, but his estrangement of her forced her to make a decision between a life that had possibilities (not everyone in the military goes to war) and a life that pushed her back down. Her husband won, her marriage is intact, but my sister returns to a life that gave her little respect.

I want people to have the chance to do what they dream. Whatever their passion is. If I have a gay friend who is dying to be the next Republican senator from Texas--well, I need to support his dream (and vote for the other guy!). If I have a friend who wants to make nuclear energy better for the world, I will support her--even if her technology is used for reasons I don't agree with. If my best friend wants to marry a person that is totally bad for them, but they are in so much love that they think it can work--who am I to admit impediments to true love?

Soulforce is about supporting freedom to make choices, isn't it? Not just the choices we agree with.

[rainbowdog]

We need to get out of Iraq. Women and men soldiers are dying everyday.
There will never be peace over there. War has been going over there since the begginig of time. We need to focus on the GBLT rights or we may have
a war on our hands. The right-wing Christian Fundanmentalists wants to deprive us of our rights. They don't care about our freedom. We need to stand up and let those biggots know we are not letting our freedom go.

Peace,
Christy:pray:

[MamimiFista]

Kara-

I was one of the 2006 Riders. It was great meeting you and working with you for such a great cause. I love Soulforce but I cannot support the Right to Serve Campaign either. I am planning on staying with Soulforce despite the difference of opinion. I do respect your decision to leave though. Thanks for everything you have done for Soulforce!

Sincerely,
Kate Riley

[este]

as a newbie to the forums, and a newbie to soulforce and the community involved in its efforts, i will not step in here and tell people to change their minds on anyone's behalf. the fact that this conversation can be shared in a fairly loving spirit speaks a great deal about the character of the people involved in this debate.

i have been a member of the pentecostal peace fellowship for almost a year before i was expelled from seminary. most people don't realize most pentecostalism has roots in anabaptism...and until wwii, my old denomination required conscientious objection to war of any sort. this is my background, but more important is my background as the son of a guatemalan and chilean parents. my father stills mourns his lost friends that were killed either by guatemalan and american soliders and also guerillas who were fighting against them. it was, of course, a no-win situation. my mother and father both saw thousands of socialists rounded up on Sept. 11, 1973 and taken to the national stadium, still blocks from my grandparents' house in Santiago; these people were tortured and killed, and thousands disappeared. one coup attempt had already failed, but the united states provided general pinochet with enough military power to overthrow the government. many chileans felt finally free of their hatred for the united states when we suffered the attack on my city exactly 28 years later. this is the way the american government has oppressed people in many parts of the world.

there are so many perspectives to consider in this argument. on one end, as a pacifist and a citizen of the world, i do not feel like anyone has a 'right to serve," not even when a country is following augustine's rules of war, which do not apply to most of the military action taken by the united states for a long while now. seeing peace trumps my affections for latino rights, lgbtq rights, and every other sort of activism that i can think of. however, i have always believed that as long as we are striving towards injustice in this world, we must sometimes take up causes that do not necessarily reflect our own personal goals. i marched with NOW when i lived in new york. i also marched in the puerto rican day parade in nyc, a thinly veiled action against american "ownership" of puerto rico, even though i am not puerto rican. this tradition goes back into the very idea of civil disobedience. the more injustice is stomped in any context, the more each of us benefit from coming closer to a just and equal world. or are we really just looking for a just and equal united states? that might be a question to address in terms of the scope, nationally and internationally, that soulforce will cover in the future. yes, i've had a VERY rough time growing up in a fundamentalist church, but it is NOTHING in comparison to what lgbtq go through in parts of latin america at least. in many places, openly gay men and women are forced to enlist, only to find themselves the object of rape, murder, or other acts that are eventually swept under the carpet.

so again, this is a no-win situation. if we win the right to serve, we lose the right to call ourselves truly non-violent people. if DADT continues, as haven said, our identities as queer people and their advocates will continue to be that of second-class citizens. i am not sure how i feel about actually taking people to enlist - the first string of casualties from this war were primarily people of color who enlisted because they were promised an american passport and a future for their family. i mourn at the loss of someone who loved this country enough to die simply to be able to live here freely.

now that i've made no coherent sense of the issue, i am left with one prevailing thought: jesus, the sort of grand master of peaceful disobedience, told the pharisees to give god what is god's and to give caeser what is caeser's. i think this might be a good way to approach this issue. jesus was still friends with simon zealot even though simon wanted jesus to take political and violent action against the roman government in jersualem. yet jesus said that he came not to build a kingdom on earth but in the hearts and minds of those who would hear him. he was aware that many of his disciples and followers were expecting a political messiah, but he stayed on task, not ignoring but certainly not encouraging this action.

if we can see in this example that our true global goal is to see injustice end for people everywhere, perhaps in the future pacifists and lgbtq rights activists will not be able to coexist, but i do not believe that point has happened yet. we are all still in the middle of a culture war that tells us a free government can make our decisions for us. i have personally always felt that the next time a draft is instated, the DADT policy will have to fail because too many people will use it to refuse military service.

so for the time being, i honor those of you who have taken an ethical stand against this particular action, and i am saddened that i will not have the opportunity to work with you at least through soulforce. however, i also stand incredibly proud of the work of soulforce youth, because i believe that their motivations for these actions are good and they are passionate about what they are doing. this will only serve to create strong leaders and activists who think for themselves yet can also agree to take things one issue at a time. no, i would not be a part of any action involved in the right to serve campaign, but yes, i will continue to seek action through soulforce and any other organization that will help me do what i am passionate about, which is making sure no one has to suffer the pain and torment of reperative therapy or expulsion from a school or even excommunication from a church. and what our military does is a direct reflection, especially now, of what the religious american community believes. so, those opposed, try to see the potential good that can come from this, and those doing the right to serve actions, let the concerns you have heard from many people go past personal choice and realize that some people simply cannot separate issues, and that is okay.

as i said before, i am glad to see that regardless of how all of this turns out, you have all spoken candidly and honestly, and coming from the monster of lies that just spewed me out of the church, honesty and truth are always welcome!

peace

[erubre]

For a long time I have been aware of the effort by some to gain the right for people of a non herterosexual orientation to serve in the U. S military. Myself, I have no desire to serve in the military, and find it something better to stay away from. And I feel a person is fortunate to not be in the military. That having been said - I understand those who woukl like the right to be in the military if they so choose, and I can see a value in ending that particular form of discrimination. Still I feel it a good thing to not be required to serve in the military. I am much oppose to the war in Iraq. I never believed there were WMD there, and Iraq and it's government had nothing to do with 9 11. And I belive U. S. troups should be brought home now. Likewise I was opposed to the Vietnam war. It is sad indeed that even one young American, or person of ether side should have been wounded or died in those wars. But there were multuple thousands. All unnecessary, and very sad indeed.There is however the necessity to maintain a strong military to defend against true threats to the nation. While it would be best if such a military did not discriminate for reasons of sexual orientation, I still see an advantage in not being required to serve. I would like the discrimiation to end, but I would like also that people not be required to serve if they so choose not to.

[IVAWSGT]

I have tried to go through the threads and read as much as possible of what has been said.

I have a particular insight into this matter. I served in the Army National Guard for 5 years including a 6 month Basic/AIT where I was day in and day out forced to live a lie. While in the Guard for 5 years I had to live a lie one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer and when I was called up for activation on Sept 11th. All the other soldiers were able to kiss thier loved ones before we left while I was relegated to a brief hug. My daily life was filled with keeping an eye out for some I might know from my unit.

My anti-war stance was solidified when I looked into a mirror outside of my recruiting office that said on the top of it "Rememebr Why You Serve, To Defend Freedom". It was at this point that I realized that fighting for this country did not make me an equal citizen. Even if we are allowed to serve we are still putting ourselves in harms way, in honor of a country that does not grant us full citizenship.

Should soldiers be allowed to serve openly? Certianly. The amount of injustice done to individuals based soley on personal ideology institutionalized by policy is irreprehensible.

Although, I agree with Kara.
At this time it is certainly permissable for women to serve and has been for many years yet despite that and despite safe guards put into place (anti-harrasment briefings and Equal Opportunity complaint channels) women are still harassed, abused and raped. Even in Iraq many women carry knives to protect them from US soldiers. Suzanne Swift was put in Jail for going AWOL to escape anothe deployment with superiors that raped her in the first. SHE WAS PUNISHED FOR BEING RAPED. This is the system of the military. Individuals in your chain of command can have the power to decide you fate.

Lifting the ban is not going to make it safe or easy for gay soldiers.
It is aginst the rules to talk discriminatly yet while I was in training when Bush was selected the first time my teacher, during class, stated "Good, with Bush in office we won't have any more fags in the military".

Also while serving certainly does not align with approval of Bush's policies it does require participation, which is implicit of approval. The growing anti-war movement in the military (see the latest Nation Article about the Appeal for Redress) would be larger if it were not in fear of reprisal.
You are not allowed free speech or dissent thought in the militray. You do what you are told. Voices of morality are not ones that change the system, they only get swallowed up. This is why there have been over 90 suicides in Iraq of US military members. This is why countless friends of mine cry at nigt and wake up drenched in sweat from thier nightmares. No matter what your job is you support the machine that kills civillains. Many people are performing jobs they did not enlist to do, which may include direct civilain interaction and possible killing.

The military is about killing, make no doubts about it. Even cooks do convoys and even cooks make the food so infantry can go out and do thier job: killing. Mechanics have weapons and are trianed on them.

I support the right of gay people to serve, but I work very hard to get people to think twice about serving. This is a contradictory struggle I fight within. Yet when I research the use of our military (see Smedley Butler and Addicted to War) I see a military that has been consistently used not for protection of people, but for protection of corportate intrest, even since the late 1800's. This makes my allegiance easy.

I was brought up Christian and belive me if you are Christian I have seen many contradicions inherant to serving in the military.

I simply cannot see how being gay and Christian would ever be in line with service in the military.

I feel with great moral conviction that this current war is wrong (See www.IVAW.org ). I draw upon my experience as a soldier, woman and homosexual. I respect what Right to Serve is trying to do but I find more honor in ending this war. If you read the text of Dr. Kings speech Beyond Vietnam, his call is for conscientious objection, not for further participation in militarism.

This may be an organization for the breaking down of barried to LGBT people, but while 600,000 Iraqis and 3003 US troops die, I cannot see the logic in trying to get gay people over there too. It seems to me a bit like trying to get gay or black people in the klan. It may break discriminatory practices, but for what end result?

I speak from experience. I thought I was proving something by serving, but I was only being used. We need to invest the billions we spend on making war and killing into making opportunities, jobs and health care available for all, not just those who join the military.

[Daniel]

I feel with great moral conviction that this current war is wrong (See www.IVAW.org). I draw upon my experience as a soldier, woman and homosexual. I respect what Right to Serve is trying to do but I find more honor in ending this war. If you read the text of Dr. Kings speech Beyond Vietnam, his call is for conscientious objection, not for further participation in militarism.

This may be an organization for the breaking down of barried to LGBT people, but while 600,000 Iraqis and 3003 US troops die, I cannot see the logic in trying to get gay people over there too. It seems to me a bit like trying to get gay or black people in the klan. It may break discriminatory practices, but for what end result?


Thank you for your excellent post. Your perspective is timely. Of course, seeing that I have come out strongly against militarism, I agree with you.

Also- I could not get your link to work. Perhaps it needs a bit of tweaking? I believe the parenthesis at the end of the address is the problem. It should read:

www.ivaw.org

You can correct this by clicking on the edit function.

I send you much peace.

[IVAWSGT]

Thanks! I Fixed it!

Also everyone should check out Stephen Eagle Funk. First CO of this war, a Marine and a gay man.

[isabellnc]

I have long admired the work of Soulforce as a southerner, a lesbian and a progressive activist. I was saddened to hear about hte "Right to Serve" campaign. I admire Kara's bravery in resigning and making her concerns public.

I agree that being in the military is not the same as being for the war, and there is wide dissent among military personal. I have friends in the military...and more and more friends who have left the military and are urging others to take the same moral stance.

One example is Stephen Funk, an gay marine who chose not to serve, becasue he felt he was participationg in violence and war by being enlisted. This gay brother was one of the first brave people to take a strong moral stand against this violence.

Another example is a friend of mine who said what others on this forum have said: he joined hoping to change and improve the military. He recently went AWOL, angered and saddened that the military and the war had changed him. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and urges other young people not to enlist, and to resist by going AWOL and refusing to go to Iraq.

RIGHT NOW veterans and military resisters are encamped at Ft. Lewis in Washington state to support war resister Lt. Ehren Watada in his refusal to participate in waht he sees as an immoral and unjust war. (www.ivawdeployed.org for more info)

Military Families Speak Out (www.mfso.org) and Gold Star Famlies ofr Peace (www.gsfp.org) call for an immediate end to the war and focus much of their energy on convincing young people that the military is not a good choice.

As principaled, justice loving LGBT folks & allies, I beleive we must ally with other progressive forces who fundamentally want what we want: a safe, fair, free world for all the worlds people. Gay. Military. Iraqi. Everyone.

Military families, veterans and active duty military are actively calling on young folks not to serve. We should stand with them, or at least not go against them. Our movement is strengthened when we unite with other peace and justice lovers.

[kara speltz]

It has now been 3 months since I first wrote, "why I'm leaving Soulforce," and after a great deal of prayer I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in resigning my staff position because I disagreed with the Right to Serve campaign. Fr. Richard Rohr says that a mistake is only a mistake, if we don't learn from it, and I have learned a lot as I have gone through the grieving process. I want to share with you who have been following this thread, some of my thinking, in hopes it may be of help to you in your decision making process.

It was over the Christmas holiday that I fully came to understand my decision was a mistake. A friend who had left the Catholic Church, but had come to attend Christmas Eve Mass, gave me a ride home from midnight Mass. My parting words to her, as she dropped me off, were that I was surprised that I was still at Holy Spirit parish given all I'd been through with the Catholic Church.

That got me thinking, why did I stay in the Church, given all the horrendous things the Vatican has said and done but felt compelled to leave Soulforce because of the Right to Serve?

Some of it lies in my deep commitment to stopping the war in Iraq. I traveled to Iraq right after the war began and then again 2 years later. I experienced both the danger and the love and my heart breaks every time I watch the news from Iraq. My good friend Jim Loney was kidnapped in November of 2005 and held captive until March of 2006, when he was finally rescued. Part of me has been in Iraq since that very first trip. I felt this deep conflict between my commitment to the Iraqi people and my commitment to Soulforcewhich led me to feel compelled to resign.

I knew in my heart that Soulforce has been the great "passion of my life." For the last 8 years it has been the primary focus of my life. And I have felt so lost since leaving. I was amazed when two different people at Christmas made a gift to Soulforce in my name. The gifts touched me deeply and opened up a new avenue of thought for me to explore. I have received so many emails about my decision, many agreeing with me, but saying they were still committed to Soulforce. All of those letters I cherished. And I will say that an important aspect of my leaving at the time, was to create a discussion about the issues.

I can't say how much I respect the fact that Soulforce leadership allowed that discussion to continue on the forum - that critiquing of one of their campaigns on their own website. I know of no other organization that would allow that. I believe that dissent within an organization can be very, very good for the organization - it is a sign of real health.

Soulforce is changing, and evolving, some of the changes I agree with, some I question, but it is a growing organization. I truly believe the Equality Ride is probably the most important campaign we've ever taken on, and I'm so excited about the fact that there will be two busses doing twice the work.

I have no idea what God has in store for me. I am still grieving the loss I have experienced in no longer being a part of the Soulforce staff. I wish I could take back my resignation from the staff, but that doesn't seem possible at this time; though I do believe all things are possible with God.

I ask you to keep me in prayer, so that I might find the path that I am supposed to follow.

[Daniel]

(((((((Kara))))))))

:love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

Thomas Wolfe may have written You can't go home again, but I firmly believe we can.

As one who was one of the loudest voices calling (more like yelling) for a change in policy, I want to say that I understand your reasons for leaving as well as wanting to return.

And yes- SF is a big place, especially if it can put up with the likes of the quasi-gnostic-christian/buddhist-little'ol-me.

There is no place like home. And I only hope that Mel White has the wherewithall to hire you back- you gem.

You need the right setting.

[Jamie McDaniel]

You were certainly missed at the annual staff/board meeting, Kara. In Mel's presentation, he showed a picture of you and the DC-3 from 2003 -- one of the many times when you protested (and in this case went to jail over) the Catholic Church's treatment of GLBT people.

Additionally, while worshiping at MCC Austin we sang "LORD hear my prayer" and Chuck (head of the board) whispered to me, "This is Kara's song."

I'd be thankful if Soulforce would consider reinstating you. Granted, turning in an official resignation is no small matter that is easily dismissed. But neither could you (and I and others for that matter) easily dismiss what we viewed as a very serious conflict. For us, King spoke too loudly and too strongly against militarism for an organization following in his footsteps to back a campaign where volunteers attempt to enlist during an unjust war.

Kara, I imagine for you, having gone to Iraq twice as a Christian peace maker and having personally met many of the people whose country our military is occupying, the conflict over Soulforce volunteers knocking on the military's door with the intent of enlisting was especially strong.

[Dash]

Still reading about Gandhi, of course, and I've been...well...a little shocked to learn that he encouraged participation by some of his brethren in WWI on behalf of Britain. He and some others joined up in England and trained to be medics. I guess it was a point of truth for him to support the country whose comforts he enjoyed...at least at the point I have reached in his autobiography.

Some things about his philosophy are still churning inside me. He wrote that all of us...no matter how pure...if we were living, were causing some himsa or violence in the world. And he did not excuse those who went to war as medical personnel, for (as he put it) those who tend to thieves and serve them in their camp--even though they do not got out to rob and kill--are still bandits themselves and just as guilty.

I really don't know where to put these things. I think that later he believed that nonviolence would serve even against such forces as the Nazis, but at the time of his writing his autobiography, he found no reason to question his decision to participate in the war.

Gandhi abhorred cowardice, it seems, almost as much as he rejected violence. Better to pick up a weapon and fight than be a coward. If I understand it right, nonviolence is a path for those who are willing to die for truth. There is no exception for cowardice.

Of course, I'm not sure Gandhi, in those circumstances, had to face a military used again and again (as ours) in the service of corporate profits. I don't know...

Ugh! Head hurt... :injured:

Tired tenor go bed now... :sleep:

Love to you Kara :love: ...and all... :pray: