Military and veteran atheists, transgenders, and homosexuals are in conflict over President-elect Donald Trump’s decision to nominate retired Gen James Mattis for Secretary of Defense.<\/p>\n
Military atheists have been generally supportive of Gen Mattis, noting he was wildly popular as a leader and, speaking to their primary concern, never gave them reason to worry over issues of religion.\u00a0 (As an example of the conduct that helped his subordinates respect him, consider how he reacted when his pilots landed at the wrong airport<\/a>.)<\/p>\n This has put some atheists at odds with their sometimes allies in the LGBT movement, who see Mattis as a potential means for Trump to undo their “progress”<\/a> over the past few years — though they can’t directly connect it to a religious issue over which to complain.<\/p>\n That said, Don Branum, a former US Air Force Academy Public Affairs staffer who has implied he was improperly treated for speaking his views against Christians, still managed to claim<\/a> Mattis is\u00a0 <\/p>\n no better than retired Army Lt. Gen. Jerry “Our God is Bigger Than Their God” Boykin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For his part, Gen Boykin supports Mattis’ nomination<\/a> [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n “The selection of Mattis is a strong indication that President-elect Trump is serious about restoring the nation’s military to where it needs to be. The services are struggling to meet their goals because of the declining morale of service members and the social experiments<\/strong> that have become pervasive…<\/p>\n “General Mattis will be a great secretary of defense,” concluded Boykin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Tribune News Service let slip why Gen Mattis’ views may be an issue<\/a> in this post-modern progressive world [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis…has ruffled feathers within the Obama administration with his controversial opinions<\/strong> on women in combat<\/strong> and post-traumatic stress disorder<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Contrary to what the reporter states as fact, Gen Mattis’ opinion on women in combat isn’t controversial. The topic<\/strong> <\/em>of women in combat is controversial. Gen Mattis simply has an opinion (one likely held by many others). The opinion that women should<\/em> serve in combat is no less “controversial.”\u00a0 The reporter has presupposed the belief that women should serve in combat is not controversial.<\/p>\n As to his words on PTSD, Gen Mattis is liked because he is a straight talker. His attitudes about PTSD and other issues are widely known — and they have not diminished his popularity.\u00a0 Mattis\u00a0has basically said if we keep telling veterans there’s something wrong with them, they’ll eventually believe it. While not necessarily a popular opinion among some, it is certainly a valid comment that needs to be considered.<\/p>\n (This is not unlike the discussion on criminalizing suicide, which would stigmatize and de-incentivize it — adding one more obstacle to those who would consider taking their own lives. That’s not a popular idea to raise, but one that certainly deserves consideration.)<\/p>\n Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning — himself a homosexual — commented that it would be “hard” for President Trump to undo<\/a> the social experimentation within the US military. Secretary Fanning, seemingly unaware of\u00a0his\u00a0status as the top leader of the entire US Army, said issues of gender within the military weren’t an issue when he<\/em> asked troops about them:<\/p>\n Fanning senses a different reaction among troops when he asks them whether they are ready to serve in mixed-gender combat units.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen I go out into the field and ask these questions, I get looked out like I\u2019m crazy for asking because it shouldn\u2019t be a big deal,\u201d he said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If the homosexual, top-ranking member of the entire Service Department asks a question about integrating women in combat units, does anyone really believe he’s going to hear some Private disagree? US troops have already been told to shut up and color, and any person who has expressed a contrarian view is either shot down or proclaimed a bigot — which doesn’t help their career that much.<\/p>\n Disagreement absolutely<\/em> exists (just ask the US Marine Corps), but those who disagree are smartly keeping their thoughts to themselves when asked by officials what their official position is.<\/p>\n Of course, Secretary Fanning also said this:<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re not allowing gays and transgender troops to serve,\u201d said Fanning, the first openly gay Army secretary. \u201cWe are catching up with the fact that they already serve.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That’s very awkward.\u00a0 After all, racists, child molesters, murderers, and Tom Brady fans also “already serve” in the US military.\u00a0 Should the law and policy be changed to “catch up with the fact” of them serving?\u00a0 After all, if inclusiveness and retention is the goal…<\/p>\n As previously noted, LGBT advocates are suddenly more concerned about National Defense than sex [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n Sue Fulton, a [homosexual] former Army captain and member of the first West Point class that admitted women, said Trump should focus on defeating the Islamic State<\/strong> rather than re-erecting barriers to service…<\/p>\n “My belief is that military leadership will focus on the difficult national security issues facing us,\u201d she said. \u201c…I can\u2019t imagine that a leader wouldn\u2019t make that his or her priority.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Funny that the Islamic State is the most important issue now that the Commander in Chief may not ideologically agree with her. In fact, she’s now upset about potential social changes being “disruptive” to the force [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n It would cause problems to the commanders in the field<\/strong> who are moving forward\u201d if Trump reinstates a ban on women in combat or takes action against transgender military service members…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Says someone representing an activist group that pushed<\/em> for that very disruption<\/strong> when it matched her<\/em> agenda.<\/p>\n General Mattis was once viewed as the leading contender for Commandant of the Marine Corps.\u00a0 He was “passed over<\/a>,” some believe, for the very reasons he has now been chosen:\u00a0his straight-talking and his principles, which may or may not include conservative positions on social issues within the US military.<\/p>\n Homosexuals and some atheists seem concerned about a potential Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Under President Trump, Gen Mattis may indeed restore some aspects of honor to the US military. He may not. It is certainly not a given.<\/p>\n But there is hope.<\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
\n