{"id":41664,"date":"2017-08-24T00:30:08","date_gmt":"2017-08-24T03:30:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=41664"},"modified":"2017-08-24T07:26:56","modified_gmt":"2017-08-24T10:26:56","slug":"military-service-patriotism-does-not-cover-a-multitude-of-sins","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2017\/08\/24\/military-service-patriotism-does-not-cover-a-multitude-of-sins\/","title":{"rendered":"Military Service: Patriotism Does Not Cover a Multitude of Sins"},"content":{"rendered":"

Writing at the Washington Post, columnist Philip Bump called out<\/a> what he believed was a contradiction between President Trump’s praise for military unity and his prior decision to renew the ban on transgender service:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence,\u201d [Trump] said then. \u201cWe must discover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n

Standing in front of an audience of members of the military, he cited their service as exemplary in that regard.<\/p>\n

It was hard, though, to ignore an asterisk that seemed to be lingering over Trump\u2019s words: His tweets last month about his plan to ban transgender troops from serving.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From President Trump’s statement, Bump draws an incorrect conclusion [emphasis added]:\u00a0 <\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s own words last month undercut his broader point on Monday: that shared patriotism and common desire to defend the country would unite soldiers, sailors and airmen<\/strong> in a way that we might all emulate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Shared patriotism, desire to defend the country, and, more importantly, the love of the fellow band of brothers may very well unite troops — but those shared values are not all<\/em> that is required to unite troops, nor even enough to allow troops to serve at all.<\/p>\n

A Type 1 diabetic may rival Captain America in patriotism, yet he cannot serve.<\/p>\n

A pedophile may have a strong desire to defend her country, yet she cannot serve.<\/p>\n

A polygamist may be willing to sacrifice his life for his fellow troops, yet he cannot serve.<\/p>\n

The US military has been granted the authority to require certain traits of character, virtue, morality, and behavior in those it permits to serve in its ranks. Sometimes those discriminators are justifiably challenged. Sometimes those discriminators are simply justified.<\/p>\n

In either case, simply being a patriot or willing to sacrifice for one’s country does not automatically grant a “right” to be in the military and absolve one of any responsibility — without regard to any other standard or qualification.<\/p>\n

Since time immemorial, people who are medically diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” or otherwise have a mental disconnect from their physical self have been prohibited from serving in the US military.<\/p>\n

Those that disagree are free to lobby for the military to let them serve. But transgenders have no ipso facto<\/em> right to serve, nor is it pure bigotry to oppose such service. There are thousands of people with medical conditions far more benign than gender dysphoria who would love to serve in the US military.<\/p>\n

More obviously, there are many Americans\u00a0who are patriots and want to defend their country but are prohibited from serving because of the way their religion requires them to dress.\u00a0 Why do those who\u00a0believe “patriotism” overrides the problems\u00a0of\u00a0transgenders in the US military not advocate for military religious freedom?<\/p>\n

It’s almost as if American society is far more concerned with sex than religion — or even actual liberty.<\/p>\n

Perhaps transgender activists should try advocating on principle<\/em> — or maybe they should get in\u00a0line.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n