{"id":23316,"date":"2013-06-19T01:00:14","date_gmt":"2013-06-19T04:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=23316"},"modified":"2016-11-26T01:26:18","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T04:26:18","slug":"michael-weinstein-inspires-congressional-action-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/06\/19\/michael-weinstein-inspires-congressional-action-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Michael Weinstein Inspires Congressional Action, Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s recent attacks on religious freedom — and the apparent subservience of the US Air Force to his every whim<\/a> — have inspired the US Congress to write opposition to Weinstein into law.\u00a0 Twice.<\/p>\n

In the first, US Rep John Fleming (R-La.) successfully inserted<\/a> language into the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act that would be more explicit than that which was in the 2013 version — and which was subsequently dismissed in a “signing statement” by President Obama.\u00a0 (According to reports, the Department of Defense has yet to produce regulations implementing the provision, as required.)\u00a0 Rep Fleming’s amendment<\/a>, Section 530, says [wording changes from 2013 highlighted]:\u00a0 <\/p>\n

ACCOMMODATION- Except in cases of military necessity, the Armed Forces shall accommodate the beliefs, actions, and speech<\/strong> of a member of the armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such beliefs, actions, or speech<\/strong> as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.<\/p>\n

DISCIPLINARY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION- Nothing in paragraph (1) precludes disciplinary or administrative action for conduct that is proscribed by chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), including actions and speech that threaten<\/del> actually harm<\/strong> good order and discipline.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The amendment also passed<\/a> the Senate Armed Services Committee after being proposed by Senator Mike Lee<\/a> (R-Ut).\u00a0 Rep Fleming said this more forceful wording<\/a> was a response to the ever-increasing numbers of\u00a0Christians<\/a>\u00a0lodging complaints that they are being discriminated against merely for speaking or acting in accordance with their faith, even when such speech or actions are consistent with the law and military regulations [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

Even though last year\u2019s National Defense Authorization Act clarified that military members are allowed to hold personal religious beliefs as a matter of conscience, the Pentagon, especially the Air Force, has clearly demonstrated an overly narrow interpretation<\/strong> of how Christian chaplains and military members are allowed to express their beliefs,<\/strong> even off duty<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In a statement<\/a>, the Obama administration threatened to veto<\/a> the NDAA over that language (among others<\/a>)\u00a0to which the administration “strongly object[ed]<\/a>” (though the 2013 bill received the same threat).\u00a0 This\u00a0earned a rebuke<\/a> from Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) and the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty<\/a>.\u00a0 The Family Research Council said this indicated Obama had “joined forces”<\/a> with “anti-Christian activist” Michael Weinstein.\u00a0 For its part, the ACLU called the language a “license to discriminate<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

As a “religious freedom” advocate, Weinstein should be supporting this amendment to the NDAA, right?\u00a0 At worst, he should be saying it is unnecessary, because the Department of Defense already has<\/em>\u00a0a policy that accommodates religious practice<\/a> except when prohibited by military necessity.\u00a0 Doesn’t it?<\/p>\n

Predictably, perennial critic Weinstein was not pleased, calling the action<\/a>\u00a0[formatting original]:<\/p>\n

Absolutely RIDICULOUS aggression against our troops’ religious liberty!! We promise you that MRFF will fight against this TOOTH AND NAIL…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In case you didn’t get that, Michael Weinstein is calling a rule that protects<\/em> religious exercise “aggression” against<\/em> “religious liberty.”<\/p>\n

Also at Deseret News<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n