What was prohibited, is now in charge; what was in charge, is now prohibited
may think that I am overstating the case when I keep referring to the so-called repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as “the homosexualization of the military.”
They should understand this. It’s not just that homosexuals may now openly join the military and openly express themselves as homosexuals once they have joined; it’s that anyone who does not approve of this revolutionary policy, and anyone who openly expresses disapproval of homosexual conduct, will be treated as a pariah. If he is an officer, either he will be immediately discharged, or his hopes of advancement will be doomed and he will soon be forced to retire, because officers must keep being promoted within a certain time period in order to maintain their commissions.
So the notion that the “repeal of DADT” is merely about the inclusion of homosexuals, and that it doesn’t threaten anyone, is absolutely false. Homosexuality, which up until December 18, 2010 was legally prohibited in the U.S. military, is now the favored position in the U.S. military, and disapproval of homosexuality is now prohibited.
Therefore it is indeed the case that the U.S. military has been homosexualized.
- end of initial entry -
This action is just what the anti-Christian left wanted. If homosexuality is now the accepted norm and Christian doctrine clearly states that that homosexual conduct is an abomination, then anyone who professes being a Christian will be in direct opposition to the law of the land. This is not like racism where there is no scriptural approval of racism, and therefore believing Christians can’t be considered “racist” merely for being believing Christians. If a military person who is gay says he or she feels threatened or intimidated being in close quarters with a professed Christian (or with even a fellow service member seen reading the Bible), then what would be the outcome? Obviously, the Christian would (1) have to renounce his faith, (2) have to renounce that part of Christian doctrine related to homosexuality, or (3) be discharged. Will all Christian chaplains now be required to sign statements renouncing any doctrine that is critical of homosexuality? What about those who attend Christian chapel at the military academies or on any military base? Will entry into the military now require a signed statement of non-discrimination or tolerance of homosexuality?
This is not like a government office worker who goes home every night. Any government worker who was accused of expressing “racist” or homophobic thoughts during work hours would be dealt with immediately in the harshest manner. However, when you are in close living quarters on a 24 hour basis, the circumstances are different.
As one of the commentators stated previously, if we can consider such possibilities, then surely the left has as well. Is there any doubt that homosexual activists will be looking for the first opportunity to test the system? Will there be any defense when a Christian comes under the authority of a hostile homosexual? No senior officer would dare go against a homosexual subordinate in order to defend a Christian—just as is now the case with racial minorities. The clear position of Christian doctrine and the requirements of military operations put this into a totally different realm than the standard categories of “discrimination and intolerance.” The latter actually still have a requirement to demonstrate that one has been harmed by such beliefs to validate an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint.
Perhaps you can add to clarity to these thoughts as you are able to do so often.
Jack from Long Island writes:
The United States of America has officially declared War on GOD by passing the the repeal of DADT. This is not easy to write, as I and I’m sure many readers are tempted by the abundance of this country to slip into a sort of easy, “God Bless America” type of Deism, where America always prevails by the Hand of Providence. We’re up to our rear ends in butter, as they used to say.
This act by the Federal government now has opened the door to a fearsome Judgment by the Most High. Our pleasures and gifts will be taken away until, at last a final series of crushing Judgments will hit our fallen nation. GOD is not mocked.
Look at the historic floods in California that came with the passing of the bill, approved by the left, middle, and conservatives “who conserve nothing.”
When I first condescended to watch Obama on Oprah I was stunned, seeing our future President, realizing that his coming heralded a calamity for our country, and that GWB was a sort of reverse John the Baptist.
This auslander came to the heart of American power to poison the wells and salt the fields of traditional America to the extent that it will collapse and be no more.
And now he did it with the support of both parties, in our name. I tremble.
Sincerely wishing you a Merry Christmas,
Jack from Long Island
Mark P. writes:
First of all, Merry Christmas.
Now, to the topic at hand.
In general, I agree with you that homosexuality in the military will probably be a disaster, but I don’t necessarily think that this is a bad thing. [LA replies: Uh-oh. More of Mark’s Leninesque “the worse, the better” thinking.] Many commentators have speculated on the left’s intentions of moving this policy into the military and they seem to imbue the left with an almost preternatural ability to get what they want in incremental steps. You guys give the left way too much credit. The left really has not thought through their position very well.
Before I point out the flaws, I’d like to make a caveat. One of the problems that I see with VFR readers is that they seem to attribute a disproportionately negative effect of some liberal policy on the country. I think this stems from an idealized portrayal of the institutions we are trying to defend like family, tradition, the military, marriage, etc. I think that when a VFR reader imagines the military, they imagine the armed forces of the WWII era being led by the West Point and Annapolis graduating classes of, say, 1915. [LA replies: this is a built in problem of being a conservative in a society that is already profoundly radicalized. But what Mark doesn’t understand is that the fact that much destruction has already occurred, doesn’t mean that MUCH MORE destruction couldn’t still be done. In contrast with Mark, it is axiomatic with me that the bad should always be opposed, not cheered as part of some quasi Marxian dialectic in which the speculative theoretician, in this case, Mark, projects various goods he sees coming out of bad. It is pure speculation, pure imagination.]
The harsh reality is that such a military has not existed since Robert McNamara took over. What we have today is a military that is severely dysfunctional, damaged, degenerate, much like the rest of society. We cannot project the effect that homosexuality would have on, say, MacArthur’s military on today’s military. This is the same approach I take with other matters.
So, while homosexuality would be a disaster in MacArthur’s military, how would it play out in today’s severely weakened military?
The first step would be to drive black and Hispanic men either out of the military or to discourage them from applying in the first place. Blacks and Hispanics have a macho culture that disdains homosexuality and not one of them would want to go into a military that would make their “cholos” and “homies” laugh. To the extent that the politically organized black and Hispanic communities display a high degree of hatred toward America and the white majority, having diminishing quantities of their members with combat training to tap is a good thing.
The second step would probably lead to a large number of outted lesbians and more lesbian recruitment, resulting in more straight women of all races leaving the military. Now, I don’t think women belong in the military doing traditional men’s roles, but, if you are going to have them, lesbians are probably more suited than other women. At least we would move away from the “floating nursery” model of the Navy or “wave of pregnancies before deployment” model of the Army.
The third step is the effect on combat troops. I doubt you will have many homosexuals entering the combat ranks, but, if you do, any such problems will usually be handled in the field … by fragging. Anything can happen in a combat zone or out at sea. Even mercenary armies of Mexicans won’t want to serve with homos.
The worst case scenario I can see is that the level of dysfunction in the homosexualized military increases to the point where private military contractors will poach the military for staff and our combat missions will be handled under contract. Given the right-wing nature of the defense industry, a Right-under-arms would be a positive development.
Debra C. writes:
Some not-so-random thoughts:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 24, 2010 11:17 AM | Send
I have long been of the opinion that should there be a show-down between the people and the government, with marshal law imposed, for example—against patriots, not anarchists—that we the people could depend upon our military to side with the Constitution against a dictator. I reasoned thus because I sensed that our military personnel, generally, were a more traditionally conservative group of individuals than the populace at large.
Perhaps it has been a vain hope all along—in the category of wishful thinking, false comfort, etc. But now I see clearly that the powers that seek our nation’s destruction, the worshippers of non-discrimination, the one-world types, of course sensed this too and made it their goal to undermine our military for reasons that include that it is easier to manipulate a morally-compromised fighting force than it is one that is steeped in the traditions—honor and moral courage and Christian values—of the past. Now we’re creating a military apparatus, the very policy of which is to break down moral inhibitions and compromise consciences, a new paradigm, the effect of which will be to stigmatize those enlisted who are rightly repelled at the prospect of being forced to “celebrate” so-called diversity.
This marks a real low point in our history and further evidence of our moral degeneracy and cowardice. The only good that can come of it is that it so egregious an affront to God that He will rightly judge us, and perhaps some people will wake up from their secular stupor.
God Bless you as our hearts cry out once again: Joy to the World!