Many years ago, I purchased a home in a rural area knowing the necessity of a new well for good quality water, as the existing well water was very brackish. With that knowledge, I negotiated with a well drilling contractor who was to be paid ‘by-the-foot’ drilled and the well casing to be paid for ‘by-the-foot’ installed. The contractor agreed to drill a 6 inch well as long as I chose, and install well casing as deep as I chose.
After drilling for some 45 feet, the well drilling contractor wanted to install a well casing and to end the well casing at that point. The contractor assured me that it was rock and he would guarantee that there would be no surface water. With that guarantee, I agreed to allow him to case the well at 45 feet. We continued to drill and by hitting a large quantity of good water at approximately 84 feet down. I instructed the contractor to continue to drill until 124 feet deep before stopping.
During the first rain, I started getting very muddy water. The well drilling contractor refused to correct the problem. I called the NC Dept. of Natural Resources, Well Water Division, who offered to come to my home location and evaluate the problem.
Using an X-Ray type instrument to be lowered down the well itself and a television type appliance attached to the instrument by a cable, the specialist was able to allow the appliance sketch an image as to where the surface ground (muddy) water was coming into my well and as to where the slate rock level was. With that information, the NC Dept. of Natural Resources called the well drilling contractor and instructed him as to how and what was required to fix the problem and furthermore to complete the remedy immediately.
The solution was to purchase a 4-inch well liner with an external collar attached to the liner on one end, insert the collar end in down first, into the existing 6-inch well casing down to the total depth of some 60 feet, and fill the space between the existing 6-inch casing and the 4-inch liner with concrete. With that, the well with a large quantity of very good well water was corrected.
Example for a possible solution to capping the oil spill: News reports state the oil line pipe is 21-inch in diameter. Place an approximately 29-inch in diameter pipe with one end having a screwed coupling welded on one end, and an internal collar on the other end reducing down and onto the 21-inch diameter pipe. With the 29-inch in place over the 21-inch pipe, attach the 29-inch pipe with the 21-inch collar to the existing 21-inch oil pipe (welded, bolted, strapped, etc.) and filled with concrete between the two differences between. Then, you can screw additional pipe to the newly installed 29-inch pipe, reduce it back to 21-inch again, and flow the oil so as to recover all of the oil and distribute it to refineries for market.
Oscar Y. Harward
Monday, June 7, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Wasp Spray for Self-Defense
By David Emery, About.com Guide
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/crime/a/wasp_spray.htm
Forwarded email recommends using wasp spray instead of pepper spray for self defense because, allegedly, it's more effective and works at a greater distance.
Example #1:
Email contributed by Marv B., Jan. 20, 2010:
Wasp Spray
A friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area was concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob them when they were counting the collection. She asked the local police department about using pepper spray and they recommended to her that she get a can of wasp spray instead.
The wasp spray, they told her, can shoot up to twenty feet away and is a lot more accurate, while with the pepper spray, they have to get too close to you and could overpower you. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. She keeps a can on her desk in the office and it doesn't attract attention from people like a can of pepper spray would. She also keeps one nearby at home for home protection... Thought this was interesting and might be of use.
FROM ANOTHER SOURCE
On the heels of a break in and beating that left an elderly woman in Toledo dead, self defense experts have a tip that could save your life..
Val Glinka teaches self-defense to students at Sylvania Southview High School . For decades, he's suggested putting a can of wasp and hornet spray near your door or bed.
Glinka says, "This is better than anything I can teach them."
Glinka considers it inexpensive, easy to find, and more effective than mace or pepper spray. The cans typically shoot 20 to 30 feet; so if someone tries to break into your home, Glinka says, "spray the culprit in the eyes". It's a tip he's given to students for decades.
It's also one he wants everyone to hear. If you're looking for protection, Glinka says look to the spray.
"That's going to give you a chance to call the police; maybe get out."
Maybe even save a life.
Please share this with all the people in your life.
Example #2:
Email contributed by Ben D., May 29, 2009:
Subject: Fw: wasp spray get a can today girls!!
Subject: Wasp Spray
I have a friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area who was concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob them when they were counting the collection. She asked the local police department about using pepper spray and they recommended to her that she get a can of wasp spray instead. The wasp spray, they told her, can shoot up to twenty feet away and is a lot more accurate, while with the pepper spray they have to get too close to you and could overpower you. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. She keeps a can on her desk in the office and it doesn't attract attention from people like a can of pepper spray would. She also keeps one nearby at home for home protection. Thought this was interesting and might be of use...
Analysis: U.S. residents tempted to avail themselves of this Internet-recommended self-defense option would do well consider that wasp spray is a pesticide, and federal law prohibits the use of any pesticide "in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." In addition, some states prohibit the use of substances for self-protection not specifically authorized for that purpose.
The main ingredient of pepper spray is capsaicin, an oil extracted from chili peppers which temporarily causes severe irritation of the eyes and lungs, producing a strong burning sensation and difficulty breathing.
Wasp sprays consist of one or more insecticides such as pyrethrum or propoxur. While the toxic side effects of such chemicals do, in fact, include eye and lung irritation in humans, they are poisons the main purpose of which is killing pests.
Notwithstanding variations among specific products (of which there are many), it's probably true that wasp and hornet sprays in general, because they're manufactured for use at greater distances, project further and more accurately than pepper sprays, which typically have a range of six to 10 feet. How reliably wasp and hornet sprays work as a deterrent against human assailants is bound to vary, however, given differences in formulation and the fact that they were not made for that purpose in the first place.
To my knowledge, no one has ever tested or documented the effectiveness of insecticide sprays for self-defense.
One reader who accidentally received a dose of wasp spray while using it around his home told me he was surprised at how little irritation he felt. "A gust of wind caused a good splash of the spray to come right back into my right eye," he wrote. "I panicked and started to run to a source of water, only to find there was no adverse reaction at all, no more than being squirted with a water pistol. It took me at least ten seconds to get to the water, and I rinsed it off, and never felt anything from it."
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/crime/a/wasp_spray.htm
Forwarded email recommends using wasp spray instead of pepper spray for self defense because, allegedly, it's more effective and works at a greater distance.
Example #1:
Email contributed by Marv B., Jan. 20, 2010:
Wasp Spray
A friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area was concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob them when they were counting the collection. She asked the local police department about using pepper spray and they recommended to her that she get a can of wasp spray instead.
The wasp spray, they told her, can shoot up to twenty feet away and is a lot more accurate, while with the pepper spray, they have to get too close to you and could overpower you. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. She keeps a can on her desk in the office and it doesn't attract attention from people like a can of pepper spray would. She also keeps one nearby at home for home protection... Thought this was interesting and might be of use.
FROM ANOTHER SOURCE
On the heels of a break in and beating that left an elderly woman in Toledo dead, self defense experts have a tip that could save your life..
Val Glinka teaches self-defense to students at Sylvania Southview High School . For decades, he's suggested putting a can of wasp and hornet spray near your door or bed.
Glinka says, "This is better than anything I can teach them."
Glinka considers it inexpensive, easy to find, and more effective than mace or pepper spray. The cans typically shoot 20 to 30 feet; so if someone tries to break into your home, Glinka says, "spray the culprit in the eyes". It's a tip he's given to students for decades.
It's also one he wants everyone to hear. If you're looking for protection, Glinka says look to the spray.
"That's going to give you a chance to call the police; maybe get out."
Maybe even save a life.
Please share this with all the people in your life.
Example #2:
Email contributed by Ben D., May 29, 2009:
Subject: Fw: wasp spray get a can today girls!!
Subject: Wasp Spray
I have a friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area who was concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob them when they were counting the collection. She asked the local police department about using pepper spray and they recommended to her that she get a can of wasp spray instead. The wasp spray, they told her, can shoot up to twenty feet away and is a lot more accurate, while with the pepper spray they have to get too close to you and could overpower you. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. She keeps a can on her desk in the office and it doesn't attract attention from people like a can of pepper spray would. She also keeps one nearby at home for home protection. Thought this was interesting and might be of use...
Analysis: U.S. residents tempted to avail themselves of this Internet-recommended self-defense option would do well consider that wasp spray is a pesticide, and federal law prohibits the use of any pesticide "in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." In addition, some states prohibit the use of substances for self-protection not specifically authorized for that purpose.
The main ingredient of pepper spray is capsaicin, an oil extracted from chili peppers which temporarily causes severe irritation of the eyes and lungs, producing a strong burning sensation and difficulty breathing.
Wasp sprays consist of one or more insecticides such as pyrethrum or propoxur. While the toxic side effects of such chemicals do, in fact, include eye and lung irritation in humans, they are poisons the main purpose of which is killing pests.
Notwithstanding variations among specific products (of which there are many), it's probably true that wasp and hornet sprays in general, because they're manufactured for use at greater distances, project further and more accurately than pepper sprays, which typically have a range of six to 10 feet. How reliably wasp and hornet sprays work as a deterrent against human assailants is bound to vary, however, given differences in formulation and the fact that they were not made for that purpose in the first place.
To my knowledge, no one has ever tested or documented the effectiveness of insecticide sprays for self-defense.
One reader who accidentally received a dose of wasp spray while using it around his home told me he was surprised at how little irritation he felt. "A gust of wind caused a good splash of the spray to come right back into my right eye," he wrote. "I panicked and started to run to a source of water, only to find there was no adverse reaction at all, no more than being squirted with a water pistol. It took me at least ten seconds to get to the water, and I rinsed it off, and never felt anything from it."
RED MARBLES
I was at the corner grocery store buying some early potatoes.
I noticed a small boy, delicate of bone and feature, ragged but clean, hungrily apprizing a basket of freshly picked green peas.
I paid for my potatoes, but was also drawn to the display of fresh green peas.
I am a pushover for creamed peas and new potatoes. Pondering the peas, I couldn't help overhearing the conversation between Mr. Miller (the store owner) and the ragged boy next to me.
'Hello Barry, how are you today?'
'H'lo, Mr. Miller.. Fine, thank ya. Jus' admirin' them peas. They sure look good.'
'They are good, Barry. How's your Ma?'
'Fine. Gittin' stronger alla' time.'
'Good. Anything I can help you with?'
'No, Sir. Jus' admirin' them peas..'
'Would you like take some home?' asked Mr. Miller.
'No, Sir. Got nuthin' to pay for 'em with.'
'Well, what have you to trade me for some of those peas?'
'All I got's my prize marble here.'
'Is that right? Let me see it' said Miller.
'Here 'tis. She's a dandy.'
'I can see that. Hmmmmm, only thing is this one is blue and I sort of go for red. Do you have a red one like this at home?' the store owner asked.
'Not zackley but almost.'
'Tell you what. Take this sack of peas home with you and next trip this way let me look at that red marble', Mr. Miller told the boy.
'Sure will. Thanks Mr. Miller.'
Mrs. Miller, who had been standing nearby, came over to help me.
With a smile said, 'There are two other boys like him in our community, all three are in very poor circumstances... Jim just loves to bargain with them for peas, apples, tomatoes, or whatever.
When they come back with their red marbles, and they always do, he decides he doesn't like red after all and he sends them home with a bag of produce for a green marble or an orange one, when they come on their next trip to the store.'
I left the store smiling to myself, impressed with this man..
A short time later I moved to Colorado , but I never forgot the story of this man, the boys, and their bartering for marbles.
Several years went by, each more rapid than the previous one.
Just recently I had occasion to visit some old friends in that Idaho community and while I was there learned that Mr. Miller had died.
They were having his visitation that evening and knowing my friends wanted to go, I agreed to accompany them.
Upon arrival at the mortuary we fell into line to meet the relatives of the deceased and to offer whatever words of comfort we could.
Ahead of us in line were three young men.
One was in an army uniform and the other two wore nice haircuts, dark suits and white shirts...all very professional looking.
They approached Mrs. Miller, standing composed and smiling by her husband's casket.
Each of the young men hugged her, kissed her on the cheek, spoke briefly with her and moved on to the casket.
Her misty light blue eyes followed them as, one by one, each young man stopped briefly and placed his own warm hand over the cold pale hand in the casket.
Each left the mortuary awkwardly, wiping his eyes.
Our turn came to meet Mrs. Miller. I told her who I was and reminded her of the story from those many years ago and what she had told me about her husband's bartering for marbles.
With her eyes glistening, she took my hand and led me to the casket.
'Those three young men who just left were the boys I told you about. They just told me how they appreciated the things Jim 'traded' them.
Now, at last, when Jim could not change his mind about color or size....they came to pay their debt.'
'We've never had a great deal of the wealth of this world,' she confided, 'but right now, Jim would consider himself the richest man in Idaho '.
With loving gentleness she lifted the lifeless fingers of her deceased husband. Resting underneath were three exquisitely shined red marbles.
The Moral : We will not be remembered by our words, but by our kind deeds. Life is not measured by the breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath.
Today I wish you a day of ordinary miracles ~ A fresh pot of coffee you didn't make yourself.
An unexpected phone call from an old friend.
Green stoplights on your way to work.
The fastest line at the grocery store.
A good sing-along song on the radio.
Your keys found right where you left them.
Send this to the people you'll never forget.
I just Did...
If you don't send it to anyone, it means you are in way too much of a hurry to even notice the ordinary miracles when they occur.
It's not what you gather, but what you scatter that tells what kind of life you have lived!
I noticed a small boy, delicate of bone and feature, ragged but clean, hungrily apprizing a basket of freshly picked green peas.
I paid for my potatoes, but was also drawn to the display of fresh green peas.
I am a pushover for creamed peas and new potatoes. Pondering the peas, I couldn't help overhearing the conversation between Mr. Miller (the store owner) and the ragged boy next to me.
'Hello Barry, how are you today?'
'H'lo, Mr. Miller.. Fine, thank ya. Jus' admirin' them peas. They sure look good.'
'They are good, Barry. How's your Ma?'
'Fine. Gittin' stronger alla' time.'
'Good. Anything I can help you with?'
'No, Sir. Jus' admirin' them peas..'
'Would you like take some home?' asked Mr. Miller.
'No, Sir. Got nuthin' to pay for 'em with.'
'Well, what have you to trade me for some of those peas?'
'All I got's my prize marble here.'
'Is that right? Let me see it' said Miller.
'Here 'tis. She's a dandy.'
'I can see that. Hmmmmm, only thing is this one is blue and I sort of go for red. Do you have a red one like this at home?' the store owner asked.
'Not zackley but almost.'
'Tell you what. Take this sack of peas home with you and next trip this way let me look at that red marble', Mr. Miller told the boy.
'Sure will. Thanks Mr. Miller.'
Mrs. Miller, who had been standing nearby, came over to help me.
With a smile said, 'There are two other boys like him in our community, all three are in very poor circumstances... Jim just loves to bargain with them for peas, apples, tomatoes, or whatever.
When they come back with their red marbles, and they always do, he decides he doesn't like red after all and he sends them home with a bag of produce for a green marble or an orange one, when they come on their next trip to the store.'
I left the store smiling to myself, impressed with this man..
A short time later I moved to Colorado , but I never forgot the story of this man, the boys, and their bartering for marbles.
Several years went by, each more rapid than the previous one.
Just recently I had occasion to visit some old friends in that Idaho community and while I was there learned that Mr. Miller had died.
They were having his visitation that evening and knowing my friends wanted to go, I agreed to accompany them.
Upon arrival at the mortuary we fell into line to meet the relatives of the deceased and to offer whatever words of comfort we could.
Ahead of us in line were three young men.
One was in an army uniform and the other two wore nice haircuts, dark suits and white shirts...all very professional looking.
They approached Mrs. Miller, standing composed and smiling by her husband's casket.
Each of the young men hugged her, kissed her on the cheek, spoke briefly with her and moved on to the casket.
Her misty light blue eyes followed them as, one by one, each young man stopped briefly and placed his own warm hand over the cold pale hand in the casket.
Each left the mortuary awkwardly, wiping his eyes.
Our turn came to meet Mrs. Miller. I told her who I was and reminded her of the story from those many years ago and what she had told me about her husband's bartering for marbles.
With her eyes glistening, she took my hand and led me to the casket.
'Those three young men who just left were the boys I told you about. They just told me how they appreciated the things Jim 'traded' them.
Now, at last, when Jim could not change his mind about color or size....they came to pay their debt.'
'We've never had a great deal of the wealth of this world,' she confided, 'but right now, Jim would consider himself the richest man in Idaho '.
With loving gentleness she lifted the lifeless fingers of her deceased husband. Resting underneath were three exquisitely shined red marbles.
The Moral : We will not be remembered by our words, but by our kind deeds. Life is not measured by the breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath.
Today I wish you a day of ordinary miracles ~ A fresh pot of coffee you didn't make yourself.
An unexpected phone call from an old friend.
Green stoplights on your way to work.
The fastest line at the grocery store.
A good sing-along song on the radio.
Your keys found right where you left them.
Send this to the people you'll never forget.
I just Did...
If you don't send it to anyone, it means you are in way too much of a hurry to even notice the ordinary miracles when they occur.
It's not what you gather, but what you scatter that tells what kind of life you have lived!
Homosexuality and the Military — What’s Really at Stake?
This article defines how President Obama and the majority Democrat Party on Capitol Hill are destroying our US Military. Their policy is to make homosexuality and lesbian activity as the normal activity of the day. Help us to defeat any and all on Capitol Hill who votes in favor of this legislation. Oscar Y. Harward
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/06/04/homosexuality-and-the-military-whats-really-at-stake/
Unless something alters the political context, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is about to become history, and the U.S. military is about to be changed forever. The summer of 2010 may well turn out to be a watershed season in this nation’s life and history. Is anyone paying attention?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Get ready. Big changes are coming to the United States military. Congress seems poised to pass legislation that would call for the elimination of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy put in place in 1993. With the support of the Obama administration, and with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, it appears that the official normalization of homosexuality within the U.S. armed forces may take place sometime this summer, after the completion of a Pentagon review.
Last Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 234 to 194 to repeal the policy. That same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16 to 12 to change the policy. A full Senate vote is expected this month.
Discharges from the U.S. armed forces for homosexual activity date back to the Revolutionary War, and until 1993 the services operated under a policy that identified homosexuality as “incompatible with military service.”
Their efforts have been greatly assisted by a documented change in the public’s understanding of the issue. Within a very short span of years, a massive shift in public attitudes has taken place. Though responses to the issue depend greatly upon how the question is asked, public opposition to the service of homosexuals in the military has clearly lessened. This shift is part of the larger transformation of moral values on issues of sexuality that has occurred over the past decade.
So, now that the full normalization of homosexuality in the U.S. military looms before us, are we ready for all that this means? Almost surely not.
There are huge realities that frame the momentous nature of this policy change. The first is the centrality of sexual identity or orientation to human life. The second is the massive institutional and symbolic influence of the military in American life. The third is the threat to religious liberty posed by the normalization of homosexuality in the armed forces.
The Centrality of Sexual Orientation — “Out” Means “Out”
On this point, the prophets of the sexual revolution were right: Sexual identity and orientation are central to an individual’s sense of self and personhood, and to an individual’s public persona. Historically, armies have dealt with this by normalizing heterosexuality and by doing everything possible to meld individuals into a unified fighting force. In this process of forming unit cohesion, individuals are to a great degree stripped of their personal identities in order to take on the singular identity of the unit.
Writing at the onset of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, John Luddy, a former Marine infantry officer, explained how this process works:
Combat is a team endeavor. To win in combat, individuals must be trained to subjugate their individual instinct for self-preservation to the needs of their unit. Since most people are not naturally inclined to do this, military training must break down an individual and recast him as part of a team. This is why recruits give up their first names and why they look, act, dress, and train alike. To paraphrase an old drill instructor, the Marine Corps is not Burger King — you can’t have it your way.
The normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces does not merely mean the fact that persons found to have a homosexual orientation will no longer be discharged from the military, it also means that something as central to human experience and identity as sexuality now complicates the situation. The presence of openly homosexual persons in military units, military housing, and military culture changes the very nature of unit cohesion. Beyond this, it changes the nature of the military as an institution. To all the complexities of breaking down individual identity in order to build a common identity, an inevitable focus on sexual orientation now reverses the entire logic.
The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” does not in itself establish a comprehensive new policy. As James Dao of The New York Times reports, there are a host of “thorny issues” that must be decided:
Will openly gay service members be placed in separate housing, as the commandant of the Marine Corps has advocated? What benefits, if any, will partners or spouses of homosexual service members be accorded? Will all military units be required to treat homosexuals the same? And what training will heterosexual officers and enlisted troops receive to prepare them to serve with openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines?
These are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the “thorny issues” any new policy must regulate. The greatest challenge posed by the normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces is not the fact that homosexual persons will serve in uniform. Given the distribution of homosexuality within the population, we can be assured that the courageous service of homosexual persons has been the case from the beginning. The greatest challenge will be posed by the fact that the homosexuality will now be open, with all that means in terms of identification with homosexual culture and relationships. How do you redefine unit cohesion after that moral revolution?
The U.S. Military and the Shape of American Culture
From the nation’s birth, the armed forces have held an established place as a culture-forming institution. Our national life is shaped by several institutional forces, but few hold the power held by the U.S. military. The public’s admiration of the armed forces is enhanced by the reality of civilian control over the military, and service in uniform has been an important means of establishing national identity and culture.
The results of this influence have been overwhelmingly positive. The successful racial integration of the military was indispensable to the civil rights movement. The military has preserved national values of honor, courage, and service. Few institutions can compare to the massive influence of the military in shaping national culture.
That is why the normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces has been such a central goal of the homosexual movement. The three most significant institutional barriers to the full normalization of homosexuality in the society are the military, laws governing marriage, and the churches. For this reason, all three of these institutional forces have been directly targeted by those who would push for the full acceptance of homosexuality. A focus on these institutions is essential if homosexuality is to be recognized on an equal moral and cultural footing with heterosexuality. There is no surprise here.
It must be recognized that the normalization of homosexuality within the U.S. military will have effects far beyond the armed forces. The most immediate changes will appear closest to where the military is concentrated, both geographically and culturally. Businesses doing work for the armed forces, individuals offering housing and a host of services to military personnel, and others similarly connected to the armed services will be the first to be required to respond to these effects and to conform to the new military reality. From there, the circles of the military’s influence will extend to the rest of the society in one manner or another.
The rejection of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is not just about the military — and that is why so much effort has been directed to its repeal.
Religious Liberty — Conviction Collides with the New Military Culture
Make no mistake: The repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will present a clear and present threat to the religious liberty of those who wear the American uniform, and especially to those who serve as chaplains.
The military serves under a clear set of rules and expectations. When homosexuality is normalized in the armed forces, an entire interconnected network of laws, regulations, directives, and policies will eventually shift as well. As those pushing for the normalization of homosexuality understand all too well, any policy that meets that objective will necessarily sanction personnel who do not conform to the new expectation. In other words, there will be an automatic reversal of the prevailing military logic on the question of homosexuality. At present, the armed forces operate under policies that identify open homosexuality as incompatible with military service. With a single stroke of legislation, that policy will not only be repealed, it will be reversed. Homosexuality will be transformed from something that is officially “incompatible with military service,” to a reality that must be protected by rules and regulations about discrimination, advancement, promotion, and military culture.
What will this mean for those in the armed forces who believe, based on their sincere religious convictions, that homosexuality is a sin? Advocating or articulating such a viewpoint will be contrary to the military’s official stance and policy. Already, employees of many corporations in the civilian world complain about discrimination in promotion and career advancement if they do not, for example, agree to put a gay pride flag on their desk for Gay Pride Month. It is not that they refuse to work cooperatively with homosexual colleagues, but they cannot celebrate homosexuality itself. Just wait until this logic hits the military.
And what about military chaplains? What will they be allowed to say and teach about homosexuality? What do they do when, for example, a Christian soldier comes for counsel about his struggles with homosexual temptation? How can a chaplain wearing the uniform of the armed forces counsel that what the military says is normal and without moral significance is what the Bible nonetheless declares to be sin?
The religious liberties of millions of uniformed Americans will be put at immediate risk by the normalization of homosexuality in the military — and these are the very people who are putting their lives on the line to preserve these liberties for others.
On the Precipice of a Vast Cultural Change
The repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy represents a huge cultural shift for the nation, and one that will come with a countless array of consequences. The repeal of the policy will not mean the end of the military, but it will mean a very different military. Given the unique circumstances and commitments of military life, it will mean an inevitable change in the profiles of persons who enlist and choose to re-enlist in the armed forces. It will mean that persons committed to a biblical view of human sexuality will be far less likely to enlist in the military, and especially to enlist in the chaplaincy corps. Do Americans recognize what this means? Are they ready for a military that has been evacuated by those who believe that homosexuality is not the moral equivalent of heterosexuality? Have they considered what this means for military recruitment?
Are they really ready to support a policy change that means that only theological liberals will be welcome as chaplains?
There is no precedent for such a massive change in the life of the military — none. For the first time, groups defined by sexual identity and sexual behavior will become protected classes within the U.S. armed forces. This is not merely a possibility; if homosexuality is normalized within the military, it is an inevitability.
Christians should take stock of all this represents, and recognize what is at stake. Few changes in military policy will affect so many people, and pose such direct challenges to Christian conviction and religious liberty. The military’s normalization of homosexuality will affect our entire field of ministry and mission.
Unless something alters the political context, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is about to become history, and the U.S. military is about to be changed forever. The summer of 2010 may well turn out to be a watershed season in this nation’s life and history. Is anyone paying attention?
************************************************************************************
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.James Dao, “As ‘Don’t Ask’ Fades, Military Faces Thorny Issues,” The New York Times, Saturday, May 28, 2010.
John Luddy, “Make Love, Not War: The Pentagon’s Ban is Wise and Just,” in Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality, ed. John Corvino (Rowan and Littlefield, 1997), pp. 267-273 (269).
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/06/04/homosexuality-and-the-military-whats-really-at-stake/
Unless something alters the political context, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is about to become history, and the U.S. military is about to be changed forever. The summer of 2010 may well turn out to be a watershed season in this nation’s life and history. Is anyone paying attention?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Get ready. Big changes are coming to the United States military. Congress seems poised to pass legislation that would call for the elimination of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy put in place in 1993. With the support of the Obama administration, and with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, it appears that the official normalization of homosexuality within the U.S. armed forces may take place sometime this summer, after the completion of a Pentagon review.
Last Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 234 to 194 to repeal the policy. That same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16 to 12 to change the policy. A full Senate vote is expected this month.
Discharges from the U.S. armed forces for homosexual activity date back to the Revolutionary War, and until 1993 the services operated under a policy that identified homosexuality as “incompatible with military service.”
Their efforts have been greatly assisted by a documented change in the public’s understanding of the issue. Within a very short span of years, a massive shift in public attitudes has taken place. Though responses to the issue depend greatly upon how the question is asked, public opposition to the service of homosexuals in the military has clearly lessened. This shift is part of the larger transformation of moral values on issues of sexuality that has occurred over the past decade.
So, now that the full normalization of homosexuality in the U.S. military looms before us, are we ready for all that this means? Almost surely not.
There are huge realities that frame the momentous nature of this policy change. The first is the centrality of sexual identity or orientation to human life. The second is the massive institutional and symbolic influence of the military in American life. The third is the threat to religious liberty posed by the normalization of homosexuality in the armed forces.
The Centrality of Sexual Orientation — “Out” Means “Out”
On this point, the prophets of the sexual revolution were right: Sexual identity and orientation are central to an individual’s sense of self and personhood, and to an individual’s public persona. Historically, armies have dealt with this by normalizing heterosexuality and by doing everything possible to meld individuals into a unified fighting force. In this process of forming unit cohesion, individuals are to a great degree stripped of their personal identities in order to take on the singular identity of the unit.
Writing at the onset of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, John Luddy, a former Marine infantry officer, explained how this process works:
Combat is a team endeavor. To win in combat, individuals must be trained to subjugate their individual instinct for self-preservation to the needs of their unit. Since most people are not naturally inclined to do this, military training must break down an individual and recast him as part of a team. This is why recruits give up their first names and why they look, act, dress, and train alike. To paraphrase an old drill instructor, the Marine Corps is not Burger King — you can’t have it your way.
The normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces does not merely mean the fact that persons found to have a homosexual orientation will no longer be discharged from the military, it also means that something as central to human experience and identity as sexuality now complicates the situation. The presence of openly homosexual persons in military units, military housing, and military culture changes the very nature of unit cohesion. Beyond this, it changes the nature of the military as an institution. To all the complexities of breaking down individual identity in order to build a common identity, an inevitable focus on sexual orientation now reverses the entire logic.
The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” does not in itself establish a comprehensive new policy. As James Dao of The New York Times reports, there are a host of “thorny issues” that must be decided:
Will openly gay service members be placed in separate housing, as the commandant of the Marine Corps has advocated? What benefits, if any, will partners or spouses of homosexual service members be accorded? Will all military units be required to treat homosexuals the same? And what training will heterosexual officers and enlisted troops receive to prepare them to serve with openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines?
These are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the “thorny issues” any new policy must regulate. The greatest challenge posed by the normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces is not the fact that homosexual persons will serve in uniform. Given the distribution of homosexuality within the population, we can be assured that the courageous service of homosexual persons has been the case from the beginning. The greatest challenge will be posed by the fact that the homosexuality will now be open, with all that means in terms of identification with homosexual culture and relationships. How do you redefine unit cohesion after that moral revolution?
The U.S. Military and the Shape of American Culture
From the nation’s birth, the armed forces have held an established place as a culture-forming institution. Our national life is shaped by several institutional forces, but few hold the power held by the U.S. military. The public’s admiration of the armed forces is enhanced by the reality of civilian control over the military, and service in uniform has been an important means of establishing national identity and culture.
The results of this influence have been overwhelmingly positive. The successful racial integration of the military was indispensable to the civil rights movement. The military has preserved national values of honor, courage, and service. Few institutions can compare to the massive influence of the military in shaping national culture.
That is why the normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces has been such a central goal of the homosexual movement. The three most significant institutional barriers to the full normalization of homosexuality in the society are the military, laws governing marriage, and the churches. For this reason, all three of these institutional forces have been directly targeted by those who would push for the full acceptance of homosexuality. A focus on these institutions is essential if homosexuality is to be recognized on an equal moral and cultural footing with heterosexuality. There is no surprise here.
It must be recognized that the normalization of homosexuality within the U.S. military will have effects far beyond the armed forces. The most immediate changes will appear closest to where the military is concentrated, both geographically and culturally. Businesses doing work for the armed forces, individuals offering housing and a host of services to military personnel, and others similarly connected to the armed services will be the first to be required to respond to these effects and to conform to the new military reality. From there, the circles of the military’s influence will extend to the rest of the society in one manner or another.
The rejection of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is not just about the military — and that is why so much effort has been directed to its repeal.
Religious Liberty — Conviction Collides with the New Military Culture
Make no mistake: The repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will present a clear and present threat to the religious liberty of those who wear the American uniform, and especially to those who serve as chaplains.
The military serves under a clear set of rules and expectations. When homosexuality is normalized in the armed forces, an entire interconnected network of laws, regulations, directives, and policies will eventually shift as well. As those pushing for the normalization of homosexuality understand all too well, any policy that meets that objective will necessarily sanction personnel who do not conform to the new expectation. In other words, there will be an automatic reversal of the prevailing military logic on the question of homosexuality. At present, the armed forces operate under policies that identify open homosexuality as incompatible with military service. With a single stroke of legislation, that policy will not only be repealed, it will be reversed. Homosexuality will be transformed from something that is officially “incompatible with military service,” to a reality that must be protected by rules and regulations about discrimination, advancement, promotion, and military culture.
What will this mean for those in the armed forces who believe, based on their sincere religious convictions, that homosexuality is a sin? Advocating or articulating such a viewpoint will be contrary to the military’s official stance and policy. Already, employees of many corporations in the civilian world complain about discrimination in promotion and career advancement if they do not, for example, agree to put a gay pride flag on their desk for Gay Pride Month. It is not that they refuse to work cooperatively with homosexual colleagues, but they cannot celebrate homosexuality itself. Just wait until this logic hits the military.
And what about military chaplains? What will they be allowed to say and teach about homosexuality? What do they do when, for example, a Christian soldier comes for counsel about his struggles with homosexual temptation? How can a chaplain wearing the uniform of the armed forces counsel that what the military says is normal and without moral significance is what the Bible nonetheless declares to be sin?
The religious liberties of millions of uniformed Americans will be put at immediate risk by the normalization of homosexuality in the military — and these are the very people who are putting their lives on the line to preserve these liberties for others.
On the Precipice of a Vast Cultural Change
The repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy represents a huge cultural shift for the nation, and one that will come with a countless array of consequences. The repeal of the policy will not mean the end of the military, but it will mean a very different military. Given the unique circumstances and commitments of military life, it will mean an inevitable change in the profiles of persons who enlist and choose to re-enlist in the armed forces. It will mean that persons committed to a biblical view of human sexuality will be far less likely to enlist in the military, and especially to enlist in the chaplaincy corps. Do Americans recognize what this means? Are they ready for a military that has been evacuated by those who believe that homosexuality is not the moral equivalent of heterosexuality? Have they considered what this means for military recruitment?
Are they really ready to support a policy change that means that only theological liberals will be welcome as chaplains?
There is no precedent for such a massive change in the life of the military — none. For the first time, groups defined by sexual identity and sexual behavior will become protected classes within the U.S. armed forces. This is not merely a possibility; if homosexuality is normalized within the military, it is an inevitability.
Christians should take stock of all this represents, and recognize what is at stake. Few changes in military policy will affect so many people, and pose such direct challenges to Christian conviction and religious liberty. The military’s normalization of homosexuality will affect our entire field of ministry and mission.
Unless something alters the political context, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is about to become history, and the U.S. military is about to be changed forever. The summer of 2010 may well turn out to be a watershed season in this nation’s life and history. Is anyone paying attention?
************************************************************************************
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.James Dao, “As ‘Don’t Ask’ Fades, Military Faces Thorny Issues,” The New York Times, Saturday, May 28, 2010.
John Luddy, “Make Love, Not War: The Pentagon’s Ban is Wise and Just,” in Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality, ed. John Corvino (Rowan and Littlefield, 1997), pp. 267-273 (269).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)