I have not posted in a while, but it’s because the sequel to Sunlost is alllmoooost readddyyyyy…. I swear!
Anyway, I wanted to comment on this, er… actually, I wanted to adapt a comment I made about it on Facebook.
Just ran across an article at Breitbart. Combine this with the Administration’s removal of the Clinton-era policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and sending women into combat; you’re left with a very odd view of the military.
In with gays, out with Christians…. One of those groups happens to be a much larger percentage of the nation, and has traditionally comprised the bulk of the military. Can you guess which group it is?
This nonsense proceeds from a fundamentally confused view of the purpose of the military. Why do we have a military? Is it so we can treat everyone in the nation fairly, provide jobs and scholarships to young people, and have a group of folks who fill out nice uniforms? Is it to get people into shape with PT exercise programs and boost their self esteem?
Nope, we have a military so that we can kill people and break things. In a fallen world, there will always be threats to free nations, so there will always be people that need to be killed and things that need to be broken in order to preserve American liberty. Why is this, you ask? When has war not ravaged most of the world on a regular basis? People are naturally bad. Long before the advent of modern technology, most cultures did a pretty good job of antagonizing each other, even with enormous mountains (literal as well as figurative) in the way of trampling over neighboring peoples. In fact, its likely that if technology had been developed to this point before Western Society had been established, then the tribalism of non-Western cultures would have eradicated all but the last squalid, battered, and wounded nation.
Regardless, the purpose of a military is to maintain optimum proficiency with the objective of posing a devastating threat to enemies of our nation, and also to follow through on that threat when necessary. We could call this a “line in the sand,” if an American politician hadn’t so recently sullied that phrase, redefining it by failing to act when the line he drew was crossed. I guess he sees a line in the sand as analogous to a fence on the southern border… just not really worth much.
That said, those serving in the military give up certain rights, i.e. the right to live where you want to live, the right to take time off whenever you feel like it. Yes, you have a lot of options in the modern military, but ultimately the buck stops on your X.O.’s desk and if he nixes your plans, tough luck, corporal; fall in.
You also give up rights when you seek to become a part of the military. For instance, you give up the right to be paralyzed from the waste down. Can’t physically follow through on that requirement? Tough luck, you ain’t gettin’ in, civvie. That’s life. Anything that detracts from maximized military efficiency should not be tolerated in the service; anything, including the natural difference in physical strength between men and women. The military is not here to cater to situations and lifestyles, nor does it exist to offer to anyone a paycheck and easy access to college funds.
So is the military here to allow gays to express themselves? Nope, although that wouldn’t be an issue, except for the long, detailed knowledge of what is necessary to maximize the effectiveness of your fighting forces. Homosexual relationships within a military unit can seriously compromise the maneuvers of that squad (and if you’re laughing because of all the puns, shame on you. You try writing a sentence about this that can’t be turned into a lewd joke!).
Is the military here so that Christians can proselytize unbelievers? Not at all. But how exactly does it harm combat effectiveness when someone is open and honest about his faith to those friends he develops in the ranks? You’d be fighting an uphill battle to explain that one, if for no other reason than our military has been predominately (overwhelmingly) composed of semi-religious christians, dedicated Christians, and devout Christians, for the bulk of American history. I don’t have the stats to back it up, but I’d bet the sixteen dollars in my wallet right now that Christians volunteer for military service at a far higher rate per capita than do atheists, Hindus, or Muslims.
And speaking of that, isn’t this the same Pentagon that utterly refused to stop a major by the name of Nidal Hasan from “sharing” his faith at Fort Hood? I guess screaming “Allahu ackbar,” while shooting forty or so of your fellow soldiers isn’t acceptable religious expression, but the long series of disquieting e-mails to jihad-praising muslims, overtly-radical-Islamist presentations justifying suicide bombings, and having tentative links to the 9.11.01 attacks… Apparently all of that is peachy keen… For muslims.
Or will the Pentagon come out and court martial the next Nidal Hasan as well as the next Dwight Eisenhower? (Ike was a Christian by the way) With groups like CAIR running defense for any muslim activity, why would we expect the Pentagon to go after the hard targets as well as the easy ones? (That is a bit of a double entendre for you enlisted servicemen out there.)
Okay, okay. I am being unfair. Nidal Hasan compared to Dwight Eisenhower? Okay, but the Pentagon really does need to show how Christians discussing their faith with people in the military is on par with Hasan shooting people. Some of these radical atheists are just off-their-rocker stupid. And I know that because I have a few atheist friends who look at this stuff and facepalm as fast as I do.
Whatever. Have a good time, everyone… except you Christians in the military… You guys are threats… causing insomnia attacks in the radical anti-christian crowd… Yeah…