{"id":42055,"date":"2017-10-20T00:30:34","date_gmt":"2017-10-20T03:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=42055"},"modified":"2017-10-20T01:32:09","modified_gmt":"2017-10-20T04:32:09","slug":"former-army-secretary-eric-fanning-wrong-on-character","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2017\/10\/20\/former-army-secretary-eric-fanning-wrong-on-character\/","title":{"rendered":"Former Army Secretary Eric Fanning Wrong on Character"},"content":{"rendered":"

Former Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning — known most widely as the “first openly homosexual<\/a>” Service Secretary — took to Time.com last Friday to support the effort <\/a>to allow transgenders to serve in the US military.<\/p>\n

In so doing, he promoted a common canard — that the US military must<\/strong> accept everyone,<\/strong> regardless of sexual proclivities or behavior — because, well, America:<\/p>\n

I know first-hand the need for our military to attract the best talent, regardless of their race, national origin, gender identity or sexual orientation…<\/p>\n

Our all-volunteer military cannot long succeed, let alone thrive, when it turns away qualified, capable and patriotic individuals committed to serving their country.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not only can<\/strong> the US military succeed — and thrive<\/em> — when it turns away certain individuals, it can only<\/strong> succeed if it turns away certain individuals.<\/p>\n

\"\"Dark times in our military history have been marked by lowering recruitment standards<\/a> to bolster the ranks with warm bodies who could “shoot straight” — even if they lacked the courage and character to act ethically or morally “straight.”<\/p>\n

Fanning also repeatedly — four times, in fact — makes the claim that transgenders are “qualified” to serve. That’s an empty assertion because, much like claims about gender today, it is a “fluid” term.<\/p>\n

Government officials who set military policies — and only<\/em> they\u00a0— dictate who is and\u00a0is not “qualified.”<\/p>\n

If military policies change such that one “qualification” is consonance between one’s biological and mentally perceived gender, then, by definition, transgenders are not<\/strong> “qualified” — despite Fanning’s pleas to the contrary.<\/p>\n

Finally, Fanning also re-makes the tired argument that transgenders have<\/strong> served in the military, ergo<\/em> they should continue<\/strong> to serve in the military. It’s a noble, if underhanded, effort. Fanning is suggesting that any individual currently banned from serving simply needs to lie, cheat, or otherwise deceive their way into the military.<\/p>\n

By Fanning’s logic, once they can demonstrate their military service — even if it is against policy or the law — they will suddenly be “qualified”\u00a0and entitled to serve<\/strong> — despite\u00a0any law or policy that implies the contrary.<\/p>\n

Car thieves, drug users, pedophiles, wife beaters, tax cheats — all of whom have managed to serve in the US military contrary to law and policy — would be celebrating Fanning’s policy pronouncement, were he still the Secretary of the Army.<\/p>\n

Hypocritically, under Secretary Fanning the US Army banned and discharged plenty of “capable and patriotic” individuals, because the Army — led by Fanning — decided they weren’t “qualified”.<\/p>\n

Then again, if Fanning’s advocacy succeeds, they may yet be able to demonstrate their “patriotism” and serve openly in the US military. After all, if all that matters is your ability to “shoot straight,” who retains the moral\u00a0authority to say they shouldn’t<\/em> serve?\u00a0 What harm could it cause?<\/p>\n

Character matters.<\/p>\n

Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”
\n– 1 Corinthians 15:33<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/div>\n

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

\n