US Air Force Officer Criticizes DoD Advocacy of Humanism, Sexuality
An anonymous US Air Force officer recently published an article on the Family Research Council’s blog entitled “Unmasking the DOD’s Endorsement of the Humanism Religion.”
When you hear the word “religion,” does Humanism immediately come to mind? Probably not. However, pragmatically and legally, Humanism is just as much of a religion as Christianity and Islam. This article articulates the claim that the DOD has endorsed the religion of Humanism by promoting the LGBT movement.
It’s a bold statement — and one that might make sense. In its basic form, humanism simply replaces the deity of religious mantra with humanity; that is, rather than believing God is the ultimate source of truth, humanists believe the source of truth is man. Thus, it is from man humanists derive their moral authority.
From this the author derives the position that the LGBT movement relies on humanism — and humanism alone — as a moral authority. Thus, the LGBT movement is, in that way, a “religious” ideology — and the government isn’t supposed to endorse religious beliefs:
Since the LGBT movement is consistent with the religion of Humanism, then it is inappropriate for the DOD to endorse such a movement.
Yet, as the author points out, the DoD celebrates homosexuality, transgenderism, and even bisexuality — all products solely of humanistic beliefs. Not only does it celebrate — it also punishes opposition:
While the DOD celebrates Humanist beliefs, it also reprimands those who oppose these beliefs.
The problem with the Air Force author’s position is consistency in the demands placed upon the DoD. If the author wants the DoD to treat humanism as a religion by requiring it to not-endorse the humanist “religion,” the author would presumably grant that the DoD should treat humanism as a religion in other areas — for example, proactively recruiting and assigning oxymoronic “humanist chaplains.” The DoD can either be held to account to treat humanism as a religion in all areas, or none — but it isn’t a halfway proposition.
It is a convenient argument, then, but one whose underlying premise is likely not one the author would actually advocate.
One can certainly make the argument the DoD has endorsed a single viewpoint with regard to the social acceptability or morality of the LGBT movement. Perusing military Public Affairs releases reveals a veritable bevy of pro-LGBT articles communicating an official message of the US military — but not a single one in which an official military article communicates a message that even hints at opposition to the LGBT lifestyle. The DoD endorses an entire month in which it celebrates sexual behavior — but only LGBT sexual practices. No similar month by the US military extols the “pride” of heterosexual sex. In no similar month does the DoD actively celebrate religious liberty or religious expression — religious freedom that would include a diversity in ideas regarding both religion and sexuality.
Thus, the author’s argument that the US military endorses the LGBT lifestyle doesn’t necessarily require humanism to be characterized as “religious.” He could, for example, cite the requirement the government not restrict religious or “sincerely-held” viewpoints, or the requirement that religious expression be permitted, insomuch as military necessity allows. Rather than attempting to “silence” the support for the LGBT movement, with its unintended consequences, this would raise an opposing voice — allowing the voice of truth to speak. And, though it may seem difficult to believe sometimes, Truth always wins.
In the end, it is potentially most notable that what some have called “social experimentation” within the US military over the past few years has failed to be the “non-issue” that so many activists claimed it would be. Imagine that.