Should religious beliefs determine military duties?

[Evo]

3. That in a presumably all-white Canoe Club he chose to break his doctor's confidentiality standard and muse about the "musicality" of the name Barack Hussein Obama

That's another thing that makes me call it bogus, the delivery doctor would not know the name of the baby, unless there was some unusually close connection between doctor and patient, especially in the 60's, she would have been given what was called "twighlight sleep", and probably not even be awake before he left. The baby's name does not come up in the delivery room. The doctor leaves immediately and the nursing staff takes over. A hospital staff person would come by within a day and ask the mother if she had decided on a name yet to put on the hospital birth record to be sent to the city records office.

Too much detail to be believable, IMO.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

That's another thing that makes me call it bogus, the delivery doctor would not know the name of the baby, unless their was some close connection between doctor and patient, the baby's name does not come up in the delivery room. The doctor leaves immediately and the nursing staff takes over. A hospital staff person would come by within a day and ask the mother if she had decided on a name yet to put on the hospital birth record to be sent to the city records office.

Too much detail to be believable, IMO.

That is a very good point, and I cannot think of a rational refutation of it.

 

[turbo]

That is a very good point, and I cannot think of a rational refutation of it.

The attending nurse, helping deliver a black baby from a white woman tells the obstetrician "Guess what else, Dr. West? Her first name is Stanley." Rational refutation or not, oddities stick in our minds, and the birth entailed enough rare/odd details to make it notable.

As Ivan has pointed out, if the circumstances surrounding Obama's birth were suspicious in the least, his enemies on the right (all of the GOP) and on the left (the Clintons, at least) would have been all over it. Senators, party-leaders, and former Presidents have resources that would likely leave us mundane citizens agape. The birthers are nuts. Need proof? Their "queen" is Orly Taitz. Just Google her and try (if you can) to sit through some of her over-the-top rantings on YouTube and news feeds.

 

[arildno]

That's another thing that makes me call it bogus, the delivery doctor would not know the name of the baby, unless there was some unusually close connection between doctor and patient, especially in the 60's, she would have been given what was called "twighlight sleep", and probably not even be awake before he left. The baby's name does not come up in the delivery room. The doctor leaves immediately and the nursing staff takes over. A hospital staff person would come by within a day and ask the mother if she had decided on a name yet to put on the hospital birth record to be sent to the city records office.

Too much detail to be believable, IMO.

But he WOULD know the declared father's name from the patient records, agreed?

Now, let us stick to rationality, and just state that:

Obama jr. WAS born at that hospital.

What elements of that woman's story would necessarily be true, independent of her story?

a) That the mother's name WAS Stanley Ann Obama

b) That, most likely, the father's name was ALSO at the patient records (a name his son inherited)

c) That the baby born was black.

All these facts are highly likely to have been known to the obstetrician at the birth.

Now, if it pans out that:
d) Dr. West was the performing obstetrician
e) He knew that lady's father Stanley
f) That both he and her frequented the Canoe Club

then the lady's story is not that improbable at all.

As part of her self-censoring ways, she is re-directing (consciously or unconsciously) snide remarks on "musicality" the obstetrician made with respect to the Negro Dad onto his more famous son.

 

[Evo]

The attending nurse, helping deliver a black baby from a white woman tells the obstetrician "Guess what else, Dr. West? Her first name is Stanley." Rational refutation or not, oddities stick in our minds, and the birth entailed enough rare/odd details to make it notable.

Too much embellishment. If she had said, "a white woman gave birth to a black baby today", that I could believe. If it was that rare, that would be sufficient.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

The attending nurse, helping deliver a black baby from a white woman tells the obstetrician "Guess what else, Dr. West? Her first name is Stanley." Rational refutation or not, oddities stick in our minds, and the birth entailed enough rare/odd details to make it notable.

As Ivan has pointed out, if the circumstances surrounding Obama's birth were suspicious in the least, his enemies on the right (all of the GOP) and on the left (the Clintons, at least) would have been all over it. Senators, party-leaders, and former Presidents have resources that would likely leave us mundane citizens agape. The birthers are nuts. Need proof? Their "queen" is Orly Taitz. Just Google her and try (if you can) to sit through some of her over-the-top rantings on YouTube and news feeds.

You do not need to convince me that the Birthers are mad, I believe it. This is now about minor details, one side distorting facts can lead good people to do the same.

 

[arildno]

Too much embellishment. If she had said, "a white woman gave birth to a black baby today", that I could believe. If it was that rare, that would be sufficient.

It's more about what the obstetrician would have said to a pretty young thing whose father's name was Stanley.

He would like to keep her attention, be the center, starting with a shocker like "Stanley gave birth today", and then drawling out a yarn about negroes being musical and such, even their names being a song.
Easily bewitching foolish, young women with all that song&dance, those negroes..



As for IvanSeeking's salient point as to why the Republicans aren't pushing the issue, it might well be that they were given an indormal confirmation from Dr. West personally that he DID deliver Obama jr. in 1961, a fact he could have given due to the unusual circumstances, and that the good doctor lived right up to the beginning of the controversy.

The chosen reticence among Republicans could be a strategical non-lie, living perfectly well with innuendoes, however baseless, against the President.

 

[turbo]

You do not need to convince me that the Birthers are mad, I believe it. This is now about minor details, one side distorting facts can lead good people to do the same.

It is tough to glean the facts, against the storm of misinformation. The Internet is a powerful tool. It can be used to tease out the truth, and it can be used to flood the 'web with half-truths, speculation and lies. I was supplying IE with a plausible reason why the birth-mother's name might stick in the obstetrician's head. I have worked with a lot of doctors over the years, and they chatter with their assistants and staff, especially when the patient is absent or sedated.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

It is tough to glean the facts, against the storm of misinformation. The Internet is a powerful tool. It can be used to tease out the truth, and it can be used to flood the 'web with half-truths, speculation and lies. I was supplying IE with a plausible reason why the birth-mother's name might stick in the obstetrician's head. I have worked with a lot of doctors over the years, and they chatter with their assistants and staff, especially when the patient is absent or sedated.

True, it is hard to do this, but at least we all agree that details being aside, the Birther conclusion is madness, even if some elements of their doubt can be understood a little. Xenophobia is an ugly thing, and fear damages the one who is afraid.

 

[DaveC426913]

Xenophobia is an ugly thing, and fear damages the one who is afraid.

Can you please expound on your claim that this is xenophobia?
Xenophobia is a fear or hatred of the unknown or the foreign.

Surely you grant that their issue is with the Consititutional requirement that the president be a natural born American citizsen. Upholding the Constitution is not a xenophobic act.

 

[zomgwtf]

Can you please expound on your claim that this is xenophobia?
Xenophobia is a fear or hatred of the unknown or the foreign.

Surely you grant that their issue is with the Consititutional requirement that the president be a natural born American citizsen. Upholding the Constitution is not a xenophobic act.

He might consider them xenophobic if the constitution being upheld is xenophobic.

 

[arildno]

He might consider them xenophobic if the constitution being upheld is xenophobic.

Well, equal rights are given to CITIZENS, rather than extended to NON-citizens.

This is a perfectly moral principle by which to organize a sovereign state.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, equal rights are given to CITIZENS, rather than extended to NON-citizens.

Most rights are extended to non-citizens. The particluar one being discussed here is not, but I haven't heard an argument for why this one is xenophobic.

 

[arildno]

Most rights are extended to non-citizens.

Like the right to stay on in the country after having done serious crimes?

Like the right to have your children educated at the state's expense if you can't afford private schools?

I agree with you, Russ, that however we count rights, "most rights" would be equally extended.


But there definitely exist important exceptions.

For example, are non-citizens entitled to have a lawyer appointed to them, if they cannot afford one themselves?

 

[russ_watters]

Like the right to stay on in the country after having done serious crimes?

Like the right to have your children educated at the state's expense if you can't afford private schools?

I agree with you, Russ, that however we count rights, "most rights" would be equally extended.

But there definitely exist important exceptions.

I'm not sure what your point is here... I just wanted to clarify.

For example, are non-citizens entitled to have a lawyer appointed to them, if they cannot afford one themselves?

Yes. Anyone going through our judicial system has roughly the same rights.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Can you please expound on your claim that this is xenophobia?
Xenophobia is a fear or hatred of the unknown or the foreign.

Surely you grant that their issue is with the Consititutional requirement that the president be a natural born American citizsen. Upholding the Constitution is not a xenophobic act.

I believe the fear underlying this is not standing up for a constitution, but that it is motivated by fear of a foreigner running the country. I do not hear much in the media of, "it is not his right", but I hear much of "divided loyalties".

The issue of the requirement under the US Constitution is one I do not challenge, and it makes a great deal of sense logically. The fear which drives them even now on the other hand, seems to come from something more. The concept may be rational, but the fear as it is expressed now is not.

Cloaking yourself in the US constitution or flag does not change the fundamental drive or fears which cause these people to act.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I'm not sure what your point is here... I just wanted to clarify.
Yes. Anyone going through our judicial system has roughly the same rights.

He is not a US citizen Russ Waters, and I think he was asking the question, not being rhetorical. In many countries the rights extended to people in the USA who are not citizens are astounding (I say this from personal experience). As a naturalized citizen, the rights are virtually identical, but he has said before that he does not know this.

 

[arildno]

For example, Russ:

In a welfare state model, there simply cannot be the same benefits extended to non-citizens as to citizens, because the whole system depends upon years of taxes paid to pay for next generation's benefits.


I was assuming some such rights are restricted in the USA as well, but maybe I'm mistaken here?

 

[turbo]

Back on topic, has anybody here Googled "Lt. Col. Terry Lakin"? There are countless articles, blogs, etc, extolling his "courage" and saying what a "hero" he is for "defending the Constitution". By refusing to deploy, he left his unit short one presumably skilled doctor, unless another doctor was pressed into deployment to maintain unit strength. How is that heroic? Either his unit is short-handed or another doctor was forced to deploy in his place.

Either way, his demand to see the president's birth certificate before he follows orders from his commanders is gross insubordination worthy of dishonorable discharge without regard to the damage his disobedience may have done to his unit. He has been in the service for 18 years. Has he demanded to see the birth certificates of the previous Commanders-in-Chief? Presumably not.

 

[DaveC426913]

Back on topic, has anybody here Googled "Lt. Col. Terry Lakin"? There are countless articles, blogs, etc, extolling his "courage" and saying what a "hero" he is for "defending the Constitution". By refusing to deploy, he left his unit short one presumably skilled doctor, unless another doctor was pressed into deployment to maintain unit strength. How is that heroic? Either his unit is short-handed or another doctor was forced to deploy in his place.

Either way, his demand to see the president's birth certificate before he follows orders from his commanders is gross insubordination worthy of dishonorable discharge without regard to the damage his disobedience may have done to his unit. He has been in the service for 18 years. Has he demanded to see the birth certificates of the previous Commanders-in-Chief? Presumably not.

Without validating the Birther's movement, I think your argument is missing the point.

The nature of a protest based on principle is that you do not accept that the duty you are tasked with is valid. Essentially, Obama is not qualified to lead us in battle. We cannot be there under his rule. "I" cannot be there.

Your argument is tantamount to "Your principles (the principles of your country) should never interfere with you carrying out your duties, even if your duties betray your principles (and your country)".

 

[russ_watters]

[yes, I know he isn't a US citizen]

For example, Russ:

In a welfare state model, there simply cannot be the same benefits extended to non-citizens as to citizens, because the whole system depends upon years of taxes paid to pay for next generation's benefits.

I was assuming some such rights are restricted in the USA as well, but maybe I'm mistaken here?

Heh, well, in a "welfare state" model, those things might be considered "rights", but in the US, they are still called "entitlements". Whatever you call them, though*, you are correct that they are [mostly] reserved for citizens. When I talk about "rights", I'm specifically referring to the Bill of Rights and related issues. Most are conferred to non-citizens in most cases. Your previous question about lawyers for non-citizens, for example, was a Bill of Rights issue and it does apply to non-citizens.

*Hmm...actually, isn't that a pretty solid argument for why such things are not rights? When it comes to things like nationalized healthcare, people who favor them often claim they are rights, but unless the definition of "rights" has changed, a "right" is something universal - something that all people should get just for being people. To not give free healthcare to anyone who walks into your country means not treating healthcare as a "right".

 

[IcedEcliptic]

[yes, I know he isn't a US citizen] Heh, well, in a "welfare state" model, those things might be considered "rights", but in the US, they are still called "entitlements". Whatever you call them, though*, you are correct that they are [mostly] reserved for citizens. When I talk about "rights", I'm specifically referring to the Bill of Rights and related issues. Most are conferred to non-citizens in most cases. Your previous question about lawyers for non-citizens, for example, was a Bill of Rights issue and it does apply to non-citizens.

*Hmm...actually, isn't that a pretty solid argument for why such things are not rights? When it comes to things like nationalized healthcare, people who favor them often claim they are rights, but unless the definition of "rights" has changed, a "right" is something universal - something that all people should get just for being people. To not give free healthcare to anyone who walks into your country means not treating healthcare as a "right".

And look how well a welfare state has worked for Greece. ><

 

[russ_watters]

Without validating the Birther's movement, I think your argument is missing the point.

The nature of a protest based on principle is that you do not accept that the duty you are tasked with is valid. Essentially, Obama is not qualified to lead us in battle. We cannot be there under his rule. "I" cannot be there.

Your argument is tantamount to "Your principles (the principles of your country) should never interfere with you carrying out your duties, even if your duties betray your principles (and your country)".

Officers are charged with judging if their orders are legal specifically to avoid a "just following orders" type of situation, however that responsibility pertains only to issues within their perview. They are only entitled to examine the orders themselves. They are not entitled to challenge the resumes of their commanders.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Officers are charged with judging if their orders are legal specifically to avoid a "just following orders" type of situation, however that responsibility pertains only to issues within their perview. They are only entitled to examine the orders themselves. They are not entitled to challenge the resumes of their commanders.

A colonel, and from what I can see this man is a full bird colonel, is a commander of forces, be they medical or not. There is no question that depriving troops of a qualified medical doctor in a combat theatre, AND disrupting the CoC (colonels carry out the orders of generals) this is desertion.

THAT being said... the presidents the commander in chief of the US armed forces, but if he were NOT a "legal president" then his orders would be inherently illegal. I think that's a load of horse**** myself, both in terms of the birther histrionics, and this colonel in particular, but I suspect that is the losing argument his lawyer will make for him.

For the "facts" of the birther case. Ha. HAHAHA. I'm genuinely shocked that so many pages of this have gone on! I didn't see any army colonels refusing the order to wage war on Iraq, or drone pilots refusing to violate the airspace of a sovereign nation. A whopping ONE officer took two years in the clink, and we still get little gems such as "thumbs up, a penis!, now here's my scary dog!". If you're in the army, your job is to follow the orders of your next in the CoC, and "coordinate medical efforts" is only illegal if you're Josef Mengele.

 

[DaveC426913]

Officers are charged with judging if their orders are legal specifically to avoid a "just following orders" type of situation, however that responsibility pertains only to issues within their perview. They are only entitled to examine the orders themselves. They are not entitled to challenge the resumes of their commanders.

I'm not suggesting it is part of his professional duty to question the principles of his order, I am saying it is his human duty and (right) to stand on a principle he feels is bigger than his job.

It seems turbo's argument is tantamount to "You jeopardized your post for something as silly as upholding a principle for your country? You are unprincipled."

Again, for the record, I am not agreeing with the Birther stance, I am simply looking for a stronger argument than what's been proposed.

 

[Choronzon]

Officers are charged with judging if their orders are legal specifically to avoid a "just following orders" type of situation, however that responsibility pertains only to issues within their perview. They are only entitled to examine the orders themselves. They are not entitled to challenge the resumes of their commanders.

For an order to be lawful, it must be issued by a person with that lawful authority. It's a situation that comes up much more often than one might think, especially when a soldier is given conflicting orders, or when one is in a unit that is working with non-military government officials, foreign militaries, or even mercenaries.

For the "facts" of the birther case. Ha. HAHAHA. I'm genuinely shocked that so many pages of this have gone on! I didn't see any army colonels refusing the order to wage war on Iraq, or drone pilots refusing to violate the airspace of a sovereign nation. A whopping ONE officer took two years in the clink, and we still get little gems such as "thumbs up, a penis!, now here's my scary dog!". If you're in the army, your job is to follow the orders of your next in the CoC, and "coordinate medical efforts" is only illegal if you're Josef Mengele.

Yes, the "facts" of the birther movement are quite absurd—but they have basically exactly as much evidence for their claim as there is evidence for the existence of god. So any religious people in here should look in the mirror before they throw stones at birthers.

 

[BobG]

For an order to be lawful, it must be issued by a person with that lawful authority. It's a situation that comes up much more often than one might think, especially when a soldier is given conflicting orders, or when one is in a unit that is working with non-military government officials, foreign militaries, or even mercenaries.

Given the frequency in which we conduct operations with multi-national alliances, you're right that this situation can come up.

What would be the proper response for a colonel receiving orders from a allied officer that he thought conflicted with orders from his own service?

Ignore the order? That way our ally would go into battle expecting support that would never come, suffer horrible casualties and learn their lesson that they have to send their orders through proper channels? He would have to try to resolve whatever conflict existed by consulting with his superiors, since to take a bizarre stance on this could do a lot more damage than simply following the orders - the impact of the colonel's actions could bust the alliance, putting the entire war effort at risk.

Or if an allied commander sent an order through an American general for troop support and the American general forwarded the order down to the Colonel? Since the order originated from a foreign commander, the order has no validity even though the order came through an American general that reviewed and presumably concurred?

It would be valid for the colonel to question the general about whether he really wanted him to do this or not, especially if the colonel thought it was an ill-advised order. In fact, the colonel could do that even if the order came from someone officially in his chain of command.

And, more relevant, how about if someone legally in his chain of command ordered troops to deploy for years and then, suddenly, someone not legally in his chain of command ordered troops to continue deploying, just as they had for the last several years.

Even if the birthers' claim about Obama were correct, it wouldn't help Lakin.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

For an order to be lawful, it must be issued by a person with that lawful authority. It's a situation that comes up much more often than one might think, especially when a soldier is given conflicting orders, or when one is in a unit that is working with non-military government officials, foreign militaries, or even mercenaries.



Yes, the "facts" of the birther movement are quite absurd—but they have basically exactly as much evidence for their claim as there is evidence for the existence of god. So any religious people in here should look in the mirror before they throw stones at birthers.

I am not fundamentalist, but I am religious. I take exception to this comparing faith in god to the Birther movement. You see, I know that I have faith and that it is just faith! I would not disobey a lawful order that conflicted with my religion, and I do not try to make other people believe what I do. Many things exist without proof, but if you choose to enter military service, you accept lawful orders! If that is conflicting with your religion, do not enter service, but once in you do not get to pick and choose.

 

[Frame Dragger]

For an order to be lawful, it must be issued by a person with that lawful authority. It's a situation that comes up much more often than one might think, especially when a soldier is given conflicting orders, or when one is in a unit that is working with non-military government officials, foreign militaries, or even mercenaries.



Yes, the "facts" of the birther movement are quite absurd—but they have basically exactly as much evidence for their claim as there is evidence for the existence of god. So any religious people in here should look in the mirror before they throw stones at birthers.

I'm not religious. As for throwing stones, if it were legal I would consider it at this point.

 

[zomgwtf]

I am not fundamentalist, but I am religious. I take exception to this comparing faith in god to the Birther movement. You see, I know that I have faith and that it is just faith! I would not disobey a lawful order that conflicted with my religion, and I do not try to make other people believe what I do. Many things exist without proof, but if you choose to enter military service, you accept lawful orders! If that is conflicting with your religion, do not enter service, but once in you do not get to pick and choose.

I think he's talking about the birthers ideologies having the same evidence as religious. Nothing to do with religious people joining the military...

He's trying to say that birthers have no real solid evidence, so do religious people. I agree.

I however am not religious so I am free from his statement and can throw stones all I want.

 

[Choronzon]

I am not fundamentalist, but I am religious. I take exception to this comparing faith in god to the Birther movement. You see, I know that I have faith and that it is just faith! I would not disobey a lawful order that conflicted with my religion, and I do not try to make other people believe what I do. Many things exist without proof, but if you choose to enter military service, you accept lawful orders! If that is conflicting with your religion, do not enter service, but once in you do not get to pick and choose.

I think that it is likely that there are people who subscribe to the birther ideology in the military who also follow orders, and there are many who refuse service on religious grounds, including some who have already become members of the armed services.

I do agree that you can be religious and still serve admirably, but it doesn't change the fact that you have chosen to believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence, so perhaps you shouldn't judge birthers so harshly. I personally know more than a few soldiers who absolutely despise President Obama, and that hatred has pushed many to also question his eligibility, yet they still serve and still follow orders.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I think that it is likely that there are people who subscribe to the birther ideology in the military who also follow orders, and there are many who refuse service on religious grounds, including some who have already become members of the armed services.

I do agree that you can be religious and still serve admirably, but it doesn't change the fact that you have chosen to believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence, so perhaps you shouldn't judge birthers so harshly. I personally know more than a few soldiers who absolutely despise President Obama, and that hatred has pushed many to also question his eligibility, yet they still serve and still follow orders.

It is one thing to believe in god, knowing this is an act of faith that is beyond confirmation or refutation. I know that while I believe as I do, it does not mean I must be right. There is evidence that Obama is a legal president; this would be like a visitation to an atheist by an archangel, and the atheist glosses over the whole event. Obama has a certificate of live birth, and that is the standard. This is faith in the face of crushing evidence to the contrary, not religious doubt for lack of evidence.

I question the motives and intellect of any Birther.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not suggesting it is part of his professional duty to question the principles of his order, I am saying it is his human duty and (right) to stand on a principle he feels is bigger than his job.

It seems turbo's argument is tantamount to "You jeopardized your post for something as silly as upholding a principle for your country? You are unprincipled."

Again, for the record, I am not agreeing with the Birther stance, I am simply looking for a stronger argument than what's been proposed.

If he were so concerned about the constitution then he might realize that congress are the ones charged with determining the qualifications of presidents and not military colonels. While he may well be acting on principle it is fairly obvious that his stated issue of principle is not what is motivating him. Either that or he is ignorant even of the basis of his own principles.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I do agree that you can be religious and still serve admirably, but it doesn't change the fact that you have chosen to believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence, so perhaps you shouldn't judge birthers so harshly.

Attacking someone's religion, in order to defend a military officer who is refusing to obey a lawful order, based on internet rumors, really is one for the books. We are free to believe what we want, but we are not free to act as we want. Faith addresses questions that by definition can never be answered; not the latest political rumors for which there is zero evidence. Faith is utlimately based on personal experience and not what someone else says. How harshly do you judge the religious zealots who refuse their sick children medical treatment? That is the difference between faith and actions. That is the difference between faith, and being looney.

I think I do understand your point about him acting on what he believes to be right. So, if he really is such as believer, then he should have no problem serving time in prision. He can serve his time in prison and get his reward in heaven, just like any good person of faith would be willing to do, for faith. And that's where he belongs, in prison.

 

[Galteeth]

Having some contact with these people, I think I can answer some questions about motivation.

1.Racism: Definetly. Also a sense of "otherness" to Obama for those who see America as a nation of primarily Anglican culture (this of coursse goes back to a very old regional conflict)

2. Rules about presidential elligibility on this issue were designed to prevent dual allegiances. People don't seriously think Obama is acting in the interests of Kenya, but rather as a Globalist. That is, does not see the presidency as being primarily a means to serve the interests of American citizens, but rather a position of global leadership, with an obligation to the interests of the world (or as they would put it, allegiance to an ideology that presumes to know what is best for the world). On this matter they may have a legitimate point (whether you agree with or not).


As far as the technical legal argument, it is absurd. They are arguing about legal technicalities. Like many who used this type of thinking, they do so extremely selectively. Since the notion of "citizenship" is entirely a legal construct, even if he was born in kenya, it is irrelevant. What matters is that the law is satisified as to his citizenship. There is no "But he was really born in Kenya!" because that is totally irrelevant. What "makes" someone a citizen of a country is the law, not something magical about the imaginary lines that go across land masses when you are expelled from your mother's vaginal canal. Since Obama is legally a citizen, he IS a citizen. Of course people can define citizenship anyway they want, but their argument is based on an appeal to law.