Tag Archives: ron crews

Army Disavows Presentation Supporting Weinstein Ideology

The news of a US Army briefing seemingly supporting a doctrine of Michael Weinstein — and the firm decision by the Army to disavow the presentation — made surprisingly wide press this weekend.

At issue was a briefing given by a US Army Reservist on “Extremism and Extremist Organizations” (PDF, with notes) which listed “evangelical Christians,” “Ultra-Orthodox Judaism,” “Sunni Muslims” and “Catholicism” alongside “al Quaeda [sic]” as “religious extremism.”  (In fact, evangelical Christianity was at the top of the list.)  The briefer was apparently a Military Equal Opportunity officer, ironically enough.

An attendee of the briefing — who describes himself as an evangelical Christian — took issue, obtained a copy of the briefing, and provided it to the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty (CARL) and the military Catholic Archdiocese:

“Men and women of faith who have served the Army faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,” retired Col. Ron Crews, Read more

USMC Lawyers say Spouse Groups Must Accept Homosexuals

If DADT repeal was such a benign ‘non-event,’ why are incidents like this erupting into scandals more than a year later?

The top lawyer in the US Marine Corps has reportedly told the Marine legal community that, to avoid “a stir” as seen at Fort Bragg, spouse groups operating on Marine installations must accept homosexuals:

The memo noted that spouses clubs and various other private institutions are allowed to operate on bases only if they adhere to a non-discrimination policy encompassing race, religion, gender, age, disability and national origin.

“We would interpret a spouses club’s decision to exclude a same-sex spouse as sexual discrimination because the exclusion was based upon the spouse’s sex,” the memo said.

This appears to be legal advice within the legal community and, as noted before, military lawyers do not make decisions about military policy (nor are they always right).  However, the article does not cite a Marine policymaker Read more

Chaplains Group says Military Homosexuals Demand Privileges

Retired Chaplain (Col) Ron Crews penned a lengthy commentary at The Washington Times entitled “Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges: Toleration doesn’t cut both ways.”  The article collects many of the tidbits that have been mentioned off-hand in other media articles claiming DADT repeal has had no effect — the one liners have been quoted as asides that ‘some are claiming otherwise.’

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

The article contains an extensive list of examples of negative repercussions from the acceptance of homosexuality in the US military:

Officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed…[for] privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal.

A chaplain was encouraged…to resign [or] “get in line with the new policy…” Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change…

Service members…protested a service school’s open-door policy…The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.

While this article lacks detail in most of the examples, many have been discussed in greater specificity before.  For example, as discussed here the chaplain told to “get in line” was in a briefing in 2010 — and the comment came from then-Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen.

The “problem” with the examples isn’t specificity; it is that in and of themselves they are largely not actionable.  An Admiral telling an officer to ‘get in line or get out’ is perfectly militarily acceptable — unless one is willing to consider the Admiral was failing the military’s own directive to demonstrate tolerance for the officer’s religious viewpoint.  Even then, it is, at best, an indicator of the military culture, and not necessarily an actionable violation of a specific regulation.  Being harassed for opposing homosexuality is currently in vogue, and demanding an exception to the open door policy is reprehensible (and unwise), but it is not illegal.

In other words, most of these examples demonstrate a negative impact on servicemembers as a result of the repeal of DADT.  In fact, they may be indicators of the greater cultural narrative being pushed in the military today.

The difficulty is in challenging that narrative.  While these examples may demonstrate a cultural shift toward an environment hostile to those morally opposed to homosexuality (and supportive of those who defend it), it is difficult or impossible to cite chapter and verse of military regulations against a “culture.”

In the end, those who are morally opposed to homosexuality are left with evidence of a potentially hostile culture in the military — despite reassurances to the contrary.  However, since that cultural shift does not technically violate any regulations, those who support military service by open homosexuals are able to simply say “tough.”

On the other hand, this may be evidence that specific rules protection the religious liberty of those morally opposed to homosexuality are, in fact, required.  They have been proposed in Congress before and failed to make it through conference committee.  They were proposed again this year.  Were such legislation to be passed, action taken against a servicemember because of their expression of moral or religious opposition to homosexuality would be explicitly prohibited.  In other words, there would be a chapter and verse regulation to cite, even if a “hostile” culture existed.

Michael Weinstein Pens Self-Indicting Diatribe

Michael Weinstein recently wrote a little-noticed piece that railed against the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. The article was clearly intended to incite a feud, with Weinstein making liberal use of shocking semantics, including calling CARL “extremist,” “fundamentalist dogs,” “putrid bigots,” and accusing them of “rape.”  Such is the language of those who fight religious freedom, apparently.

The diatribe isn’t worth reading, but the self-indicting hypocrisy and lack of cognitive dissonance from the ever-bellicose Weinstein is entertaining:  Read more

Newest Academy Cadets Eat Doughnuts, Told to Let Go of God

Jason Torpy of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers is currently engaged in his annual campaign on atheism at the US military academies, which coincides with basic training at each service academy.  The Christian Post picked up on his discussion, and noted that some version of non-sectarian offering was available during basic training to new cadets.

Chaplain Ron Crews of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty acknowledges that those who choose to have no religious faith also have rights — but questions their desire to mimic religious institutions and have chaplains:  Read more

Chaplains Report on Turmoil, or Lack Thereof, post-DADT Repeal

The Associated Press interviewed a small sampling of chaplains and chaplain endorsers in an apparent attempt to assess the impact of open service by homosexuals following last year’s repeal of the policy best known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

One interesting subject was Chaplain (Col) Timothy Wagoner, a Southern Baptist who attended the recent controversial same-sex union ceremony held in a military chapel to show his “support.”

“As a Southern Baptist, why was I here? I was here to lend support,” Wagoner said. “I was here supporting Airman Umali. I’ve worked with him. He’s a comrade in arms.”

“I’m also supporting Chaplain Reeb,” he said. “She gave a beautiful ceremony.”  Read more

Congressmen Call Air Force Hostile to Religion Again

Updated with BrigGen Lee quote on Michael Weinstein.

Sixty-six members of Congress called on Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to investigate the US Air Force for an environment of “hostility towards religious freedom” — the fourth time in recent months they’ve made such an accusation.

The Congressional letter (PDF) essentially said that Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz’s September policy letter had created a “chilling effect” on religious freedom as Airmen attempted to comply with his guidance:

The decisions that have been made in reliance upon this policy go beyond what is required by the US Constitution.  The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion; however, the mere discussion of religion or reference to God certainly does not rise to that level.

The Congressmen said the Air Force had “capitulated” to organizations Read more

1 4 5 6 7 8