A reader who works for the Department of Defense, reacting to my post from earlier today about the State Department’s instructing Fulbright scholars in gender ideology, says this memo was sent around this morning to thousands of employees of that particular agency:

This [meeting] will focus on the importance of being able to move from tolerance and acceptance to embracing diversity. We have all observed and been on the receiving end of each of these different levels of human interaction. We can state with absolute certainty the distinction between being tolerated and being embraced, for instance. There are confidence impacts. There are social impacts. There are mission impacts. The panel for this Coffee and Conversations will talk about the importance of embracing each other, regardless of our differences. [emphasis mine] They will also share experiences and insights into where they have seen this done well and where they have seen it done wrong.

The reader adds:

The announcement then goes on to list the panelists and remarks that they will join together “in discussing how we can be better champions of diversity and help create a more inclusive workplace.”

The proselytizing goes well-beyond the State Department.

It used to be that you were being asked to tolerate, which I think most of us, whatever our personal view on homosexuality and transgenderism, can agree is a reasonable request, especially in the workplace. Now you are being strongly nudged by your employer to affirm, or embrace. Notice the language in the memo, which implies that if you don’t affirm, then you are harming the mission (= doing a subpar job). You know what happens to people who harm the mission.

I’ve written before about a Christian friend who works at a senior level within a major corporation. He has ignored many company-wide prompts from the Human Resources department urging employees to declare themselves LGBT “allies,” because he believes having to make that declaration would violate his conscience. He fears the day when his superiors come to him and tell him that his failure to positively affirm his allyship means he creates a risk for a hostile work environment, and they fire him.

Well, the Defense Department is now laying the groundwork for the same thing among its employees. Think that’s alarmist? Let’s say that you are a religious believer and Pentagon employee and are perfectly prepared to be tolerant, but cannot “embrace,” or affirm, homosexuality or transgenderism. How would you feel receiving a memo from your supervisors telling you that refusing to “embrace diversity” — and we know what that is code for — amounts to creating negative “mission impact”? How secure would you feel that your employment would not eventually depend on violating your religious conscience?

The reader adds that as this is Gay Pride Month, there’s an endless loop of LGBT history and progress playing on TV screens in all the lobbies. And:

A friend of mine is keeping track of the number of emails we get regarding various events for the month (or just outright propaganda), and I think we’re in the dozens.

So, if embracing and affirming (as distinct from mere tolerating) is seen by the Pentagon as necessary for maximal “mission impact,” will it also be the case that armed US combatants have to assent in the same way as part of their mission? Call this alarmist if you like, but the handwriting is on the wall. At some point, this kind of thing will be the pinch of incense that Christians will be required to burn if they want to serve in the military, even in a civilian capacity.

Relatedly, two retired US Army officers, both Christians (one an Orthodox priest), have called for Christian resistance if Congress and the president decide to compel young American women to register for the draft. Excerpt:

If the U.S. Congress and President Obama collude this year to require all young women in America to register with Selective Service, there will be no need to wait for an exigency that might compel the federal government to reinstate the military draft. The moral abasement of the U.S. armed forces would, in principle, already be complete. With that scenario in view, we propose that traditional Christians consider an uncharacteristically radical, proactive course of action.

As retired U.S. military officers, we recall with great joy the opportunity to serve our fellow Americans by responding, freely and without reservation, to the call to military duty. During our respective careers each of us had a distinct role in the adjudication of requests of soldiers or sailors to be discharged from military service as “conscientious objectors”—one as a chaplain tasked with ascertaining the sincerity and moral consistency of each applicant’s convictions, and one as a commanding officer to forward up the chain of command his decision for or against an applicant’s claim. The criterion for CO status is straightforward: “A firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and/or belief.”

If our federal government mandates that young women, without exception, register with Selective Service against their will, with a foreseeable possibility of conscription into the profession of arms, there will be fresh justification for conscientious objection—on both moral and religious grounds—by men as well as women to refuse to bear arms in a military force opposed to the divine and natural order of creation itself. For the sake of moral integrity, and for the providential welfare of this “one nation under God,” we are dedicated to stand with such women and men. And we earnestly appeal to all Christian authorities to acknowledge the enormity of this national crisis and to take the same stand.

Very, very quickly, traditional Christians are going to have to rethink, and rethink radically, their relationship with the State. You can do it now or you can do it later, but you’re going to have to do it.

UPDATE: A reader writes:

I can tell you as a government employee the LGBTQ appreciation is across the entire spectrum of agencies and offices this month.

There have been numerous speakers and events in nearly every building I have walked into in DC. This stuff is literally everywhere. The walls are covered with propaganda posters and affirmations, etc. It’s unavoidable.

And of course, it is all loaded with assumptions, and no one dares question whether:

1.) Any of those assumptions are worthy of questioning

2). If they government should be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least) on a month’s worth of “pride” materials and expenses, to say nothing of the time an expense of all the employees actually attending these events during the workday (on the public dime)?

At the same time, I can also tell you “iteration” with or “commitment” to diversity is not part of many government agencies annual employee reviews. In other words, you can be negatively reviewed for [failing to do] precisely what you are talking about.

There is an entire industry of consultants brought into to run these things, set them up and proffer what must be done. The HR departments are hook, line and sinker all for this, as HR always is. Bathrooms in many federal buildings have also already been changed.

Advertisement