• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Military commander removed after denouncing neo-Marxist critical race theory

Discussion in 'News & Current Events (Articles Required)' started by disciple Clint, May 17, 2021.

  1. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,917
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I'm not sure what you're saying here...

    If the military doesn't call it Marxism....then it's not Marxism?

    That can't be the argument you're making....
     
  2. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,090
    Christian
    Married
    The military is not teaching Marxism, neo- or otherwise.

    But some people don't like the military deconstructing their rationales for bigotry, so they label it "Marxism" to rouse the unthinking rabble.
     
  3. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,917
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Deconstructing their rationales for bigotry?
     
  4. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,090
    Christian
    Married
    Yes.
     
  5. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,917
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Is that what happened to this guy?
     
  6. 98cwitr

    98cwitr Lord forgive me Staff Member Red Team - Moderator Supporter

    +3,158
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Constitution
    We're trying to avoid ignition of that powder keg...too many innocent people will be hurt if set off.
     
  7. 98cwitr

    98cwitr Lord forgive me Staff Member Red Team - Moderator Supporter

    +3,158
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I think we need to ask: Who started the fire?

    [​IMG]
     
  8. disciple Clint

    disciple Clint Well-Known Member

    +3,509
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Yes but I am afraid that we will just have to stand back on this one.
     
  9. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,090
    Christian
    Married
    Okay, so I bought and read Lohmeier's book. He has a lot to say about his view of the state of world and national polity, and how the world and the nation got to where it is. He brings every "bad guy" into the picture, from the Illuminati to the Freemasons to Lenin and to Marx into the conspiracy to take down America. He cites all the things that he doesn't like about the current state of the United States (and the world), and pigeonholes all of it as "Marxism." That consumes the first 100 pages of a 200 page book, and much of the rest. There is a whole lot--many entire pages--of Tucker Carlson quotation.

    The couple of actual DoD documents he references, he applauds. Other than that, he doesn't present any other evidence of official DoD training of any of the Marxism or Critical Race Theory that he accuses the DoD of perpetuating. He doesn't even claim any such official training has even happened.

    He cites attending a voluntary racial issues discussion group among officers in which he didn't like the book that was used as the basis of discussion. He discusses several anecdotal conversations he's had with various people who don't like the current political climate in and out of the military (for their own reasons, which don't necessarily coincide with his). He discusses a chaplain assigned to his unit who was to the left of him on racial issues. All anecdotal.

    That doesn't mean that his anecdotes aren't troubling to some extent. He has a complaint that officers on social media make politically extreme statements without recrimination. I agree with him that should not happen, although I'm not sure from the limited information he gives whether those statements are being made by people identifying themselves as military officers, or if he just happens to know personally who they are. That makes a difference in terms of a military disciplinary response. But for sure, and for a lot of reasons, I would agree there needs to be some kind of military discipline exerted on military members' activities on social media.

    One concern I do share with him is the adoption of any whole-piece inclusivity program from academia into military indoctrination, or lifting military indoctrination directly from such sources as the 1619 Project. I don't think that can be done properly--civilian and military personal relationships are far too fundamentally different--and while he speaks about it as though it has happened, he doesn't point out any specific circumstances of it happening.

    As I said earlier, "Show me the PowerPoint slide."
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  10. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,090
    Christian
    Married
    Yeah, there is some POE in there. He seems to see himself as the only military officer left who is not a pod person.
     
  11. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,090
    Christian
    Married
    Except that he has lumped everything and everybody to the left of him (and he's pretty far to the right) as "Marxist."

    He calls, for instance, every "accusation of racism" in society, even historical accusations, parcels of Marxist ideology.
     
  12. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,090
    Christian
    Married
    Or look at the care that vets do get. Veterans' hospitals are full. Do some slip through the cracks? Yes. Are the cracks too wide? Yes. But as American institutions go, the US government does better for its 7% of veterans than for 92% of its other citizens.

    Of course, in America that's a low bar.
     
  13. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,917
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I'm not sure what a "historical accusation" is....do you mean accusations of racism that happened in the past?

    Can you give an example he uses?
     
  14. Desk trauma

    Desk trauma Atheist Capitalist Supporter

    +10,599
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Others
    Thanks for taking one for the team and wading though that.
     
  15. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,917
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    The military is doing "inclusivity training"?
     
  16. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,090
    Christian
    Married
    The military has been doing its own version of inclusivity training for 50 years, when the military began making the concept of "we're all green" a proactively explicit doctrine instead of an implied idea.

    But what is an idyllic concept in the civilian community is, as you have said, a necessity of the military telos. We can't win wars without it. That is, in fact, the reason why military leaders went to Truman to push for an integrated service, not the other way around.

    By the late 60s, it was clear that service integrtion was still short of actual "inclusivity" (although "inclusivity" wasn't the word the military used at the time, it's the concept they were groping for). But practical inclusivity is a different thing from idyllic inclusivity.

    Here is an example: For everyone who enters basic training, the military's intention is that each person finishes basic training strong and successfully. That is, for everyone an equal outcome. But people do not enter at equal levels. Some are overweight, some underweight, some weak, some slow, some bright, some dull, some can fallow directions, some are hard-headed. So to achieve an equal outcome, they must receive unequal treatment. The slow and weak must work harder. The duller must study longer. The overweight must run farther. The hard-headed get more discipline.

    The military must also accurately access true requirement versus arbitrary bars, which is why Marine Corps basic is has always been more physically rigorous than Air Force basic. Sometimes those have to be reconsidered. For instance, my field, Intelligence, had been barred to women up into the 70s. Why? Well, because we typically worked on the flight line and thus were considered "operations," and women could not be in "operations." Duh! But...intelligence is not flying aircraft into combat. It's not even doing a lot of heavy physical labor. It's mostly sitting in chairs at desks using our brains...and women have brains, too. So sometimes military traditions need re-evaluation. What do we really need?

    In the Navy, women had long been barred from sea duty. Because they could not go to sea (or into the air or under the sea), they could not earn various warfare badges, which virtually shut them out of higher promotion levels. But the Navy realized that in a lot of ratings (Naval occupations)--like Intelligence--male sailors were doing the minimum of sea duty necessary to qualify for the warfare badges, and were often far behind women in all the other qualifications necessary for the badges. So in the promotion boards, instead of warfare badges (which women couldn't get anyway) as automatic discriminator criteria, promotions boards were instructed to examine how much each candidate had actually accomplished across the board. If the woman was maxing out on everything else possible to she could do except getting the warfare badge, she should rate higher than a man who was clearly doing the bare minimum, including the minimum it had taken to get the warfare badge. (Today, women can go to sea, so the promotion considerations can be identical.)

    These methods are not the way the civilian community does "inclusivity," and the military must be careful not to mimic the civilian method of inclusivity.

    For example, here is where a mistake has been made: The Marine Corps, when it expanded the roles of women in the Corps, increased the rigor of women's training, keeping them separate from men in the early weeks. In those early weeks, they gave the women "more" of what American high school graduate girls commonly lacked in comparison with high school graduate boys: Not only more physical training but also more explicit training in assertiveness. Then, with that additional training in the areas American teenaged girls are typically weaker than American Teenaged boys, they were combined in the final weeks of training. Again: Unequal treatment to achieve an equal outcome.

    But under pressure of civilian idyllic inclusivity, in which equal outcome is supposed to result from equal treatment even from unequal starting positions, the Marine Corps has been forced to combine male and female training from the beginning day. So, essentially, the weak Marine doesn't get more training in the weak areas...they have to reduce the requirement instead.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  17. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +19,564
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Dang, I’ve spent loads of time in pursuit of winning internet arguments, but never any money.
     
  18. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,917
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Ok...

    When talking about inclusivity in the military...we're basically hashing out the role women have and could have?
     
  19. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +15,090
    Christian
    Married
    Pretty much any group. Generally, speaking, the military has to deconstruct attitudes that people come in with.
     
  20. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,917
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Well now I'm lost again...

    Your example of how the "one size fits all" approach isn't necessarily going to work for women because of the biological differences between men and women that are a fact of reality...makes sense. We are different in some ways. It's the exact reason why so much trouble has been stirred up by allowing trans females to compete with biological females.

    What other groups are you talking about though? I'm fairly certain that significant physical or mental disabilities prevent people from getting enlisted.

    What else are we talking about in regards to inclusion here?
     
Loading...