Despite the Supreme Court’s reassurance that their ruling would not impact the religious freedom of “religious organizations and persons,” a few groups are now using the ruling to call for an end to Christians in the US military chaplaincy.

Last week, Michael “Mikey” Weinstein yet again highlighted the oxymoronic name of his Military “Religious Freedom” Foundation by claiming that Christian chaplains should be “ousted” merely because of their religious beliefs [emphasis added]: 

As long as these faux “victimized” chaplains insist on accepting a government paycheck…while…maintaining the state of antagonism between their religion and the sexual/gender identities of servicemembers, then they don’t belong in the military…

If they are unwilling or too cowardly to [resign], then the Department of Defense must expeditiously cleanse itself of the intolerant filth that insists on lingering in the ranks of our armed forces.

That’s the essence of Weinstein’s thousand-word screed: If the religious beliefs of chaplains are in conflict with the social acceptance of homosexuality, then the military must “cleanse itself of the intolerant filth.” Sound like “religious freedom” to you?

Not to be outdone, Jason Torpy of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers said Weinstein was a “bit slow,” implying the MAAF had essentially said the same thing in 2013. Tom Carpenter of the homosexual-activist Forum on the Military Chaplaincy similarly piled on, saying he had said in 2013 that these chaplains “need to return to civilian life.”

To his credit, Torpy recognized that these religious views are actually represented in the majority of the US military chaplaincy [capitalization original]:

[These] endorsers represent[] the MAJORITY of chaplains. This is an existential crisis for the chaplaincy, one the chaplaincy has thus far, and can’t for much longer, simply work around…

What he, Carpenter, and Weinstein fail to publicly acknowledge — though they may privately admit — is these religious views on homosexuality are also held by a majority of US troops – not just chaplains.

In essence, this trio is attacking the military religious freedom of every US service member who has traditional religious beliefs — and saying those troops (the “filth,” as Weinstein called them) should not be allowed to serve in the US military.

If the US government determines certain religious beliefs are disqualifying for military service — as these critics demand — where is religious freedom, and where is the US Constitution’s protection of religious liberty?

The cries of these critics of religion will likely be dismissed without much thought — for now. But then, the concept of government-endorsed homosexuality was similarly dismissed not that long ago.

Also at WND and Christian News Network.

ADVERTISEMENT