Hegseth orders Navy ship USNS "Harvey Milk" to be stripped of its name

Also, this is a very funny argument to make since nearly every war hero you could name something after is you know, a killer. Violating God's commandment of "thou shalt not kill" seems like a pretty serious affront to Christianity and all the other major religions.

 

My original position as stated in this thread is a person should be honored for their accomplishments, and that we live in a secular society, meaning that the state is concerned with common ground moral issues shared among various religions and worldviews, i.e. murder, theft, lying, etc, while remaining neutral on religious issues that could divide us.

I threw Billy Graham as a name out there because I only knew of him as a preacher. I thought he would squarely fall in the category I was seeking to make a comparison with respect to, but maybe not.

I could see someone try to argue that Billy Graham could be honored with a statue for philanthropy, civil rights, etc, but I do think it presents the same issues as putting Harvey Mudd’s name on the side of a ship. I believe Billy Graham deserves to be honored, but I think it is the place of Christians within their own private organizations to do so. I think the statue of Billy Graham raises the same set of issues that are presented in the OP of this thread. What makes a secular society work is an understood moral common ground among religions and worldviews upon which all governance takes place. One of the major questions of the 21st century IMO will be if such a societal moral common ground can be maintained. Or will one faction gain the upper hand and decide to use that to eliminate the common ground? I don’t see much desire or effort from Democrats, corporate America, the mainstream media, or our educational institutions in the US to maintain a moral common ground. Maybe I am being pessimistic, but I don’t think so. The more I watch things play out the more I am convinced these entities view the state as their church, which they have a right to worship in.

I think the goal of the government honoring anyone should be to perpetuate the cultural values that make the secular state function, which are the shared moral foundations every state must have to function. All other debates and disagreements between religions and worldviews should take place between free people outside of government. Unfortunately, when one group decides it’s time to eliminate the common ground, conflict will follow. I think that is where things sit today.

 

I tend to agree although the practice of honoring heroic Marines and sailors by naming certain classes of true warships after them dates back at least to World War II and probably goes back much earlier as do the naming conventions for noncombat support ships.

 

The 10 commandments were not originally written in the English language. They were written in Hebrew. Hebrew, like English, has multiple words to describe killing.

Harag is relatively equivalent to the English word kill, and ratsach is relatively equivalent to the English word murder.

The 10 commandments forbid ratsach.

 

THIS is cancel culture people. It was named after him because what he did for equal rights. RBG too? Why was that? Thurgood Marshal? It's not obvious to you all what's happening? Your love for all things hateful is so obvious.

Get outta here.

 

Sure. Please state for the record, though, that his OTH discharge from the Navy for a pattern of misconduct (that would result in a similar discharge today for any officer, male or female, gay or straight) is irrelevant to whether or not a Navy ship should be named after him.

 

Wait they named a warship after Harvey Milk? #facepalm

 

Just seems foolish for a Defense Sec to prioritize on a ship name instead of more important matters. Shines an even brighter light on his lack of qualification for the position and blunders.

 

Let’s just rename it USS Corporal Max Klinger and call it a day

 

Guessing renaming it the “USS Elon Musk” is out…

 

Seriously? How long do you think it takes to sign a piece of paper? The Secretary’s stated priority is to reorient the armed forces toward its purpose of lethality. One line of effort in that regard is good order and discipline. I don’t speak for the Secretary or his office, but perhaps he felt that honoring someone who had disgraced his service with a pattern of misconduct undermined good order and discipline. Now, as I explained earlier, the facts of Milk’s OTH discharge were not clear to the public at the time in 2016. Let’s just call that accident of relying on the Shilts biography as a single source. The whole story has since come out and it’s difficult to justify keeping a ship named after someone with other-than-honorable service. Not correcting it would be weak leadership.

 

From AI, the tanker was named after Milk in 2016 in spirit of the John Lewis class tankers all named after civil rights figures, which Milk was one. He was kicked out of the Navy for his sexual orientation, after serving as a diver during the Korean war. That's all I see. Maybe you can link to other nefarious charges.

 

I addressed this in the second post in this thread. He was not kicked out “for being gay.” That certainly has happened to other people, but it is not what happened to him. First, he was caught by civil authorities having sex in a public park and turned over to the military authorities. Upon investigation, they determined he had sexual relations with enlisted personnel, including personnel over whom he held authority, and with persons who were married. The charges against him included fraternization, adultery, lewd and lascivious conduct, and conduct unbecoming an officer. He (wisely) elected to take an Other Than Honorable Discharge in lieu of a court-martial. You take his exact conduct apply it to a heterosexual officer with female partners in the present day, and you would likewise end up with the same charges. I’m not saying it helped Milk’s case in 1955, but this wasn’t a “gay” thing. It was a pattern-of-misconduct thing.

 

In the 1950's it was obviously a scandalous thing, to be gay. Kind of hard to know what relationships he engaged in in 1952, 53. By the same token, enlisted men and women engage in sex in the military and are not kicked out, unless, as you point out, it is pressured from a power position.

However, he seemed to live an exemplary life outside of the military, other than being gay and considered immoral by society at the time. He had courage and used it to help others, and paid for it with his life, and that was symbolic for the ship naming. All seems petty by Hegseth. Just my opinion.

 

You know he was an officer when he was having inappropriate relations with enlisted personnel, right? I want to make sure that part hasn’t escaped you. He was an LTJG.

 

I understand he rose to a lieutenant and was questioned about having a homosexual affair and admitted to others. No detail about who he had relations with. I'm just surprised that after 70 years, this is such an issue today, that the would be stripped of this honor in light of all the other contributions he made to society that went well beyond LGBTQ rights. This comes across as an divisionary tactic seeking a justification.

 

It is documented that when Milk was 34 years old, he initiated a sexual relationship with a 16 year old runaway named Jack McKinley.

 

There is a post in this thread that shows other rights activists that had ships named after them. He was a rights activist for most of his life. Why strip RBG off of another ship?
I'm going to use your orange man apologist argument and ask; are any of us perfect? You've never made a mistake?

 

Sure man, the bible is only literally true for the gay stuff … we know how it works lol. If you can kill people and be cool with god you can probably do a little butt stuff too.

 

Asked and answered upthread. I do not object to the naming of the other vessels named. For those that served in the armed forces, if information later comes to light that the public had been misled about the characterization of their service, then I might later object. But I don’t think it will be an issue. As far as my own military conduct is concerned, leaving aside that no one is ever going to name a ship after me, I have (so far) been officially discharged from active duty four times, all Honorable. It is not hard. And before you make a lower-expectations argument for gay people, I have two aunts, both gay, who served in the Navy, before even the limited protection of DADT, and both served honorably in terms of conduct and performance. I have another family member currently serving as an officer who is gay and manages to stay out of the same kind of trouble that Harvey Milk brought on himself. Everyone understands the rules. Don’t prey on the enlisted. Stay away from married people. And (I rarely have to mention this one) don’t have sex in public parks. So, no, not perfect. But, yes, I’ve managed to not do those things.