Retired US Army Chaplain (Col) Ron Crews penned a blog at The Hill decrying the “double standard” in the US military between religion and sexuality:<\/p>\n
I cannot help but reach the conclusion that, since the repeal of the so-called \u201cdon\u2019t ask, don\u2019t tell\u201d policy, homosexual advocacy has become a sort of \u201creligious\u201d force, and the American military gives it preferential treatment to established faiths in violation of its very own regulations…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Crews’ primary example is the recent decision by the Army to not support an Independence Day event at a church<\/a>, while it did<\/em> participate in\u00a0the\u00a0DC Capital\u00a0parade celebrating sexual “pride.” Crews cites Army Regulations 360-1, saying<\/p>\n
Section 3.2(a) specifically states, \u201cArmy participation must not selectively benefit (or appear to benefit) any person, group, or corporation (whether profit or nonprofit); religion, sect, religious or sectarian group, or quasi-religious or ideological movement; fraternal organization; political organization; or commercial venture.”<\/p>\n
…The movement to advance homosexual legal and social demands within the military has taken on every hallmark of a \u201cquasi-religious or ideological movement.\u201d<\/p>\n
It is by definition at least an ideological movement. But, in addition, it evangelizes, promises benefits to those who believe \u201cthe right view,\u201d and decrees punishment for those whose consciences don\u2019t fall in line.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Crews’ question, then, is why the Army is using that guidance to deny an honor guard to a church event, but not<\/em> an ‘equivalently disqualified’ homosexual event?<\/p>\n
The US government, and along with it the US military, has dedicated an entire month<\/a> to “celebrating pride” in a specific sexuality. The military proudly publishes articles from servicemembers asserting that their view on sexuality<\/a> is the correct one. Simultaneously, the military has appeared to sanction some US troops<\/a> who have expressed contrary views to this affirmation of homosexuality, even when they have done so in a religious or private capacity.<\/p>\n