“In other words, advocating for the Biblical view of sex and marriage in law and policy is, according to today's armed forces, tantamount to oath betrayal.”
TIL being a Marine means enforcing biblical law, not US law.
It's awkward, but I think the Author's intent given the slant of the article was to bring into relief the fact that what was generally recognized as an uncontroversial, reasonable moderate standpoint/statement of fact, and well accepted exercise of fundamental civil rights (perogative of the service member as a citizen unrelated to the job), has somehow become a radical novelty worthy of being stomped out because it contradicts or registers as something anti-thetical to some hypothetical zeitgeist in power. The controversy isn't that "Biblical law is the right one and we'll shoot you if you don't believe it", it's that something completely tangental to the mission of national defense has through bureaucracy seems to be undermining the very concept of "You do you" in a very stark and alarming way. It's supposed to invoke feelings of fear and disunity, that the "hun" are running the show now... Or something. I really wish people would rein in these types of hysterics. Both the author in writing style, and any officials using positions of authority to promote personal political ambitions. The job description is actually fairly constrained, and I'd really prefer our servicemembers weren't forced to second guess command's motives. Heck, I'd prefer to not do so. Then again, if something nefarious was going down, I'd likely not know til someone official looking knocked on the door.
5 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 27.3 ms ] threadTIL being a Marine means enforcing biblical law, not US law.
Fortunately, we have Aaron Reitz standing up for the rights of "racists, bigots, homophobes and bullies".
It's awkward, but I think the Author's intent given the slant of the article was to bring into relief the fact that what was generally recognized as an uncontroversial, reasonable moderate standpoint/statement of fact, and well accepted exercise of fundamental civil rights (perogative of the service member as a citizen unrelated to the job), has somehow become a radical novelty worthy of being stomped out because it contradicts or registers as something anti-thetical to some hypothetical zeitgeist in power. The controversy isn't that "Biblical law is the right one and we'll shoot you if you don't believe it", it's that something completely tangental to the mission of national defense has through bureaucracy seems to be undermining the very concept of "You do you" in a very stark and alarming way. It's supposed to invoke feelings of fear and disunity, that the "hun" are running the show now... Or something. I really wish people would rein in these types of hysterics. Both the author in writing style, and any officials using positions of authority to promote personal political ambitions. The job description is actually fairly constrained, and I'd really prefer our servicemembers weren't forced to second guess command's motives. Heck, I'd prefer to not do so. Then again, if something nefarious was going down, I'd likely not know til someone official looking knocked on the door.
It's a really awkward read. Not gonna lie.
When the fuck was the military a meritocracy?