Discussing the impact of DADT repeal on religious freedom, former lawyer Michael Weinstein seems to confuse his legal definitions — first saying that US military policies prohibit discrimination:

In the United States military, they’ve made it very clear that discrimination against people because of their gender preference is not going to be allowed…

Fair enough (though his use of the term “gender preference” is a bit odd in the context of DADT).  However, Weinstein then implies that the inability to discriminate is what Christians in the US military are actually demanding:

I respond to anyone who feels, including chaplains, that can’t deal with this…fold your uniform, fill out your paperwork, and get the hell out of the U.S. military.

[There’s a] difference between an internal view about ‘I’m repulsed by that concept’…

“But it’s very different when you decide to act on those impulses. That becomes behavior. That is what we call bigotry and prejudice.

As Weinstein muddies the waters on his semantics, suffice it to say that behavior characterized by treatment of individuals based on personal traits is discrimination.  For example, the US military discriminates when it refuses to enlist an individual who is deaf.

To be clear, an action may be discriminatory.  A religious belief, by definition, cannot be discrimination.

So what actions does Weinstein say Christians in the US military are demanding so they can participate in discrimination?

He never says.  Weinstein focuses almost exclusively on Christian beliefs — and then assumes that Christians either will discriminate (in some unspecified fashion), or implies that those beliefs are, prima facie, discrimination.

At worst, Weinstein belittles Christian chaplains, whose actions with regard to homosexuals are no different than their actions with regard any other troop who does not share their faith.  For example, a Muslim chaplain is not required to provide Christian counsel to a Christian troop.  In a sense, for him to decline to do so is permissible — even laudable — “discrimination.”

In other cases, Christians in the military have claimed they are in a “hostile” religious environment not because of their actions, but because of their beliefs.  An enlisted Airman was reportedly punished for using his disagreement with DADT repeal as an example of how troops of differing beliefs can still work together.  The Airman’s spoken example of belief was not discrimination.  Further, if he is allowed to have that belief in an environment of religious liberty and non-discrimination, why has Weinstein not come to his defense?

Weinstein once said he would give his last drop of blood, and encourage his children to sacrifice theirs, to ensure others’ religious liberty — even those with whom they disagreed.  While Weinstein repeats almost exactly the same words at every public speech, this was one particular promise that he dropped.  Weinstein seems to have acknowledged it is Christian beliefs with which he takes issue — and he refuses to defend the religious liberty of those whom he judges to be the “wrong kind” of Christian.

Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation “charity” is awkwardly named — he doesn’t advocate for “religious freedom.”  But he keeps the name because those who see it without knowing what he really stands for think it is a sign of something good.  Similarly, Weinstein decries “discrimination” — something that everyone decries.  But he attacks Christians not for their acts of discrimination, but only for the religious beliefs they hold.

Commentators have said there is a conflict in society — one reflected in the military — between “religious liberty” and “sexual liberty.”  Some atheists have recognized that and reveled in it.  Political appointees have recognized it and said “sexual liberty” should prevail.

Weinstein recognizes it as well, and he sees it as a means to further his crusade against Christian beliefs.  It is as simple as that.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---