"This is a progressive way forward," Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters last week as the military explained their latest social experiment.
What is the new "progressive way" our military has embraced?
MARRIAGE UPDATE: As of this past weekend, R-74 is reporting 105,780 signatures in so far. Thank you to all those associated with Faith and Freedom in this unified effort. Please gather as many signatures as possible over the next few days and get all petition forms turned in by May 31.
We have 30 more days to collect signatures for I-1192. More on that in a few days.
The US military is now inviting women "to train for infantry battalions that engage in lethal ground combat."
To advance "diversity" and "equal opportunity for women to excel"--- not to improve military readiness.
I realize that for me to raise this issue invites NARAL to publicly declare, yet another time, that I am "anti-woman," as they have done in fund raising letters over the past 3 years, and for homosexual activists to point out that we are anti-equality and out of touch.
However, it is a woman who is speaking out on this issue.
Elaine Donnelly, Director of the Center for Military Readiness (CRM), has released a statement explaining the situation like this:
“The National Football League does not pursue ‘diversity’ by training female players for non-lethal combat on the gridiron. Even the best female athletes would not survive the grueling training and punishing clashes against aggressive male opponents. Social experiments that override recognition of individual merit are not acceptable in pro football. Every team wants to win the Super Bowl.”
"But in the case of the U.S. military, women now are being invited to train for infantry battalions that engage in lethal ground combat – violent conflicts in which lives and missions are at risk. The stated motive is not to improve combat readiness, it is ‘diversity’ and ‘equal opportunities for women to excel'."
Donelly references a report from the National Health Institute that cites that women are "approximately 52% and 66% as strong as men in the upper and lower body respectively." Men are also found to be stronger relative to lean body mass.
Why are we doing this?
“Instead of putting the needs of the military first, the Defense Department is taking incremental steps to implement the deeply flawed recommendations of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission,” CMR said.
Its report, “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century,” comes not from battle-scarred veterans but from “civilian military ‘equal opportunity’ professionals who assign priority to ‘diversity,’ not military effectiveness,” CMR said.
The recommendations concede “diversity” is not about “treating everyone the same,” but instead its focus is on “inclusion.”
We have lost our way.
Congress already has been warned of the problem. In a Congressional Research Service Report on women in combat, CMR reported, the authors point out: “Notably absent in this language is any mention of the effects of military readiness such changes may produce.”
CMR has said the Pentagon’s policy “is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.”
We are doing many wrong things for the wrong reasons. Experimenting with so-called gender diversity within the only military we have could be deadly. It not only compromises our homeland security, but reveals a broader cultural decline and disorientation.
On the present secular progressive path our culture is pursuing, not only are we attempting to redefine marriage, but the most fundamental social principles of gender roles in society. Men are calling other men their wife and women are calling other women their husband---and legislatures, such as the one in Washington State, are cheering them on and voting yes. And those who violate their own conscience to do so are called courageous.
America is on the wrong moral path. There is a way that seems right, but in the end it leads to destruction.
Mike Hatfield wrote an article a few years ago titled, "21 Reasons Why Gender Matters." The study examines Gender Disorientation Pathology and Social Policy.
The study is based upon four foundational principles: 1. Gender differences exist; 2. Acknowledging gender differences is the only intellectually honest response to this reality; 3. Gender differences are complementary; 4. Gender disorientation exists in a small minority of individuals. It is not normative and should not drive social policies.
Take a few minutes and read the study.
It is time to take an honest look at the flawed morality that is causing our foundations to crumble and realize that the solution is primarily moral, not political.
Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.