{"id":25792,"date":"2013-11-22T00:25:40","date_gmt":"2013-11-22T03:25:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=25792"},"modified":"2016-11-26T00:20:04","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T03:20:04","slug":"michael-weinstein-attacks-military-religious-freedom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/11\/22\/michael-weinstein-attacks-military-religious-freedom\/","title":{"rendered":"Michael Weinstein Attacks Military Religious Freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"

Discussing the impact of DADT repeal on religious freedom<\/a>,\u00a0former lawyer Michael Weinstein\u00a0seems to confuse his\u00a0legal definitions\u00a0— first saying that US military policies prohibit discrimination:<\/p>\n

In the United States military, they\u2019ve made it very clear that discrimination against people because of their gender preference is not going to be allowed…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Fair enough (though his use of\u00a0the term “gender preference” is a bit odd in the context of DADT).\u00a0 However, Weinstein then implies that the inability to discriminate<\/em> is what Christians in the US military are actually demanding:<\/p>\n

I respond to anyone who feels, including chaplains, that can\u2019t deal with this…fold your uniform, fill out your paperwork, and get the hell out of the U.S. military.<\/p>\n

[There’s a] difference between an internal view about \u2018I\u2019m repulsed by that concept\u2019…<\/p>\n

\u201cBut it\u2019s very different when you decide to act on those impulses. That becomes behavior. That is what we call bigotry and prejudice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As Weinstein muddies the waters on his semantics, suffice it to say that behavior<\/em> characterized by treatment of individuals based on personal traits is discrimination<\/em>.\u00a0 For example, the US military discriminates<\/em> when it refuses to enlist an individual who is deaf.<\/p>\n

To be clear,\u00a0an action<\/em><\/span> may be discriminatory.\u00a0 A religious belief<\/em><\/span>, by definition, cannot be<\/em> discrimination.<\/p>\n

So what actions<\/em> does Weinstein say Christians in the US military are demanding so they can participate in discrimination<\/em>?<\/p>\n

He never says.\u00a0 Weinstein focuses almost exclusively on Christian beliefs<\/em> — and then assumes that Christians either will<\/em> discriminate (in some unspecified fashion), or implies that those beliefs are, prima facie,<\/em>\u00a0discrimination.<\/p>\n

At worst, Weinstein belittles Christian chaplains, whose actions<\/em><\/span> with regard to homosexuals are no different than their actions with regard any other troop who does not share their faith.\u00a0 For example, a Muslim chaplain is not required to provide Christian counsel to a Christian troop.\u00a0 In a sense, for him to decline to do so is permissible<\/em> — even laudable — “discrimination.”<\/p>\n

In other cases, Christians in the military have claimed they are in a “hostile” religious environment not because of their actions<\/em>, but because of their beliefs<\/em>.\u00a0 An enlisted Airman was reportedly punished<\/a> for using his disagreement with DADT repeal as an example of how troops of differing beliefs can still work together.\u00a0 The Airman’s spoken example of belief was not discrimination<\/em>.\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n

Weinstein once said he would give his last drop of blood<\/a>, and encourage his children to sacrifice theirs, to ensure others’ religious liberty — even those with whom they disagreed.\u00a0 While Weinstein repeats almost exactly the same words at every public speech, this was one particular promise that he dropped.\u00a0\u00a0Weinstein seems to have acknowledged it is Christian beliefs<\/em><\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation “charity” is awkwardly named — he doesn’t advocate\u00a0for “religious freedom.”\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Similarly, Weinstein decries “discrimination” — something that everyone decries.\u00a0 But he attacks Christians not for their acts of discrimination<\/em>, but only for the religious beliefs<\/em><\/span> they hold.<\/p>\n

Commentators have said there is a conflict in society<\/a> — one reflected in the military<\/a> — between “religious liberty” and “sexual liberty.”\u00a0 Some atheists have recognized that and reveled in it<\/a>.\u00a0 Political appointees have recognized it and said “sexual liberty” should prevail<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Weinstein recognizes it as well, and he sees it as a means to further his crusade against Christian beliefs.\u00a0 It is as simple as that.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

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

\n