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.

As evidence of this punishment, the officer cites the cases previously discussed here of the chaplain assistant reprimanded for a Facebook post, Chaplain Wes Modder, and SMSgt Phillip Monk.

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.



  • Anonymous Patriot

    Of course, the “non-issue” turned into an issue. No person with an ounce of logical sense could believe that using the DoD to both promote the non-heterosexual lifestyle, and punish those who do not sing the praises of that lifestyle, is a non-issue. Forcing other servicemen to sing the praises of men-who-have-sex-with-men for no reason beyond making such men feel “welcome” and “valued” within the military is not a non-issue.

    It is completely senseless to believe that an entire change in the military social-structure wouldn’t have negative effects for everyone.

  • Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay married. Not everyone’s a Christian. Not everyone believes in your god. And the first amendment says no one has to. Get over yourselves.

    • @Mike David
      The word “marriage” appears exactly one time on this page: in your comment. Next time you might consider reading for comprehension. Witty rejoinders that have nothing to do with the topic but are based on your assumptions and prejudice make you look a little foolish.

  • @Mike David,

    Dear Mike,

    Marriage biblically has always been between a man and a woman period. There is no positive verses in all of scripture that says homosexuality is okay or approved of by God. God cannot and will not bless a homosexual marriage between two men or between two women as well as polygamy or polyamory.

    Also, marriage is also for the purpose of procreation which cannot happen between two men or two women.

    • The US government does not care what is Biblical, or Koranical. Hell, allowing people to people pick up sticks on Saturday is not Biblical.

  • @Donalbain,

    From the beginning of time, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. To borrow an old phrase, God made them Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. When God said that Adam was alone, He made for him a partner corresponding to him or to complete him. A man cannot complete another man or a woman complete another woman. Think of it this way, what if God had made two men or two women, that would be it, they would have no children to carry on with humanity and once they both died that would be it. If when you look at the plumbing of a man and a woman, you can tell that they were made for each other. God never designed a man’s plumbing to go into a place where feces comes out, gross!! One of the purposes as I already mentioned above is procreation, to carry on with the human race.

  • And again, the US government doesn’t care what the stories about your god say he created.

    • @Donalbain
      BF hasn’t said anything about the government in either comment to which you have responded. Why have you?

  • Hey JD, as a brother in Christ, I don’t like the idea of Humanist chaplains either. However, I also don’t like the idea of any other non-Christian chaplains, such as Islamic, Buddhist, Wiccan, and so forth. Why is a Humanist chaplaincy any worse than these other non-Christian services? Of course, we are required to have non-Christian chaplains because of the constitution. The main reason I ask is because there may be more advantages to the “religious” label than disadvantages. First of all, I believe we can biblically/truthfully demonstrate the fact that Humanism is the worship of a god (self), and therefore, it is a religion. Humanists often claim that they are nonreligious, or even “neutral” in their beliefs, but Jesus makes it very clear that there is no such thing as neutral: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad”—Matthew 12:30. You mentioned the fact that “Truth always wins.” What if labeling Humanism a “religion,” along with labeling the LGBT philosophy as “Humanist,” is actually speaking a very powerful truth? And what if these labels provide the best practical and legal avenues for stopping the LGBT anti-Christian agenda? Think of the cake bakers and wedding caterers. Is not the Humanism religion being forced against them when they are being fined thousands of dollars for refusing to partake in gay weddings? When I read the anonymous author’s article, that is what I think of. The author’s approach is not about “silencing” the LGBT agenda, but rather, restraining this ideology from being forced upon people, which would allow increased freedom for non-Humanists, like us Christ-followers. I understand your idea of simply arguing for “sincerely-held viewpoints,” but perhaps that approach has its own “unintended consequences” that are far worse: we avoid the “religious” label for Humanism which gives the government and institutions free reign to enforce Humanist agendas such as the LGBT agenda…and perhaps that is exactly what is happening more and more.

    I believe this is a valuable discussion. Thank you for sharing this article, and thank you for sharing your thoughts.

    • @Bagel_Man

      Why is a Humanist chaplaincy any worse than these other non-Christian services?

      From a Christian perspective, you’re absolutely correct in everything you’ve said. The constitutional perspective is problematic, though, because elevating non-religion to equality with religion demeans religion.

      The Founders specifically called out religion for special protections. While some secularists may not like it, religion has a place of respect even within our Constitution — something non-religion doesn’t have.

      Is not the Humanism religion being forced against them when they are being fined thousands of dollars for refusing to partake in gay weddings?

      From a Christian perspective, you’re absolutely correct. From a constitutional perspective, it’s simply an unnecessary argument to make. Because:

      [If] we avoid the “religious” label for Humanism [it] gives the government and institutions free reign to enforce Humanist agendas

      If the US government requires a private citizen to behave in a way that is contrary to their religious faith, then the government has violated the First Amendment to the Constitution which restricts it from “prohibiting the free exercise” of our faith.

      For example, that’s essentially the argument made in the Hobby Lobby case, though it was decided under RFRA and not the First Amendment.

      It doesn’t matter what humanism is at that point; all that matters is that enforcement of those laws (or humanist principles) violates the First Amendment.

      To be fair to your point, Justice Scalia had a few things to say about the civil/secular “religion” that would be established if the government scrubbed the public sphere of its religious references. That’s not far from the same argument you’re making, but I believe it makes a better academic argument than formal political/ideological position.

  • Marriage is a function of the government.