{"id":35157,"date":"2016-05-25T00:30:18","date_gmt":"2016-05-25T03:30:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=35157"},"modified":"2016-11-24T21:36:25","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T00:36:25","slug":"conflict-between-military-religious-freedom-sexual-freedom-continues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2016\/05\/25\/conflict-between-military-religious-freedom-sexual-freedom-continues\/","title":{"rendered":"Conflict between Military Religious Freedom, Sexual Freedom Continues"},"content":{"rendered":"

Update<\/strong><\/span>: Multiple news sources<\/a> now report<\/a> that 11 states have sued the Federal government for its edict attempting to require public schools to let children use the bathroom of their choice, rather than the bathroom of their gender.<\/p>\n

\n

When the homosexual movement began in earnest to assert its lifestyle in society a few years ago, it claimed — some would say knowingly falsely — that all it wanted was the “freedom to love.” What difference did it make to you<\/em>, after all, if someone wanted to love a man instead of a woman?<\/p>\n

Those who dared to call for protection of religious liberty were shouted down as unnecessary and were accused of harboring hatred, bigotry, and being the go-to slur of “homophobe.”<\/p>\n

Of course, as everyone now realizes, those “homophobes” were right.<\/p>\n

Just a few years ago it would have been laughable to claim the State would force a Christian — a private citizen — to participate in and affirm a “wedding” between homosexuals.<\/p>\n

And yet that is precisely what has happened<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Just recently\u00a0it would have been unthinkable that US troops would be punished for saying “Homosexuality is a sin.”<\/p>\n

And yet that is precisely what has happened<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It would have been unconscionable that the government would allow men and women to choose<\/em> which bathroom\/locker room facilities they wanted to use — irrespective of the privacy rights of every other<\/em> citizen.<\/p>\n

And not just allow<\/em>, but enforce<\/em> that choice — with the full force of the State.<\/p>\n

And yet, that is precisely what has happened<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What was once evil is now not just condoned, not just celebrated, but also required<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The conflict continues<\/a>.<\/p>\n

After a few years of calm on the military religious freedom front, the US House of Representatives included an amendment to the 2017 NDAA to protect government contractors from being required to accept homosexuality\/transgenderism in order to qualify for government contracts.<\/p>\n

Known as the Russell Amendment after its author, Steve Russell of Oklahoma, the non-descript Amendment was intended to protect religious organizations from having to adhere to government-mandated sexual policies counter to their religious beliefs. (No law requires them to adhere to such policies; rather, President Obama issued an Executive Order to do so.)<\/p>\n

As Mike Berry of the First Liberty Institute pointed out<\/a>, this Amendment is absolutely necessary. Without it, military bases around the world can no longer freely hire contractors to fill empty religious support roles — because they rely on contractors who, because of their religious nature, cannot assent to the mandates of the Executive Order.<\/p>\n

It’s also a protection that already exists in law. The only reason it wasn’t addressed in response to this latest issue is because the latest issue didn’t come about as a result of a change in law but from\u00a0an Executive Order. Congress’s intent is simply to apply the same protections<\/em> that are already<\/em> in law to the non-legislated Executive Order.<\/p>\n

This seems like a reasonable protection of their religious freedom, as it prevents the government from discriminating against persons\u00a0based on their religious beliefs. That’s what the Constitution is supposed to do with regard to citizens and their liberties.<\/p>\n

Homosexual activists and their supporters, though, called this taxpayer-funded\u00a0discrimination<\/a>.<\/p>\n

At one point, Democrats in the House of Representatives ironically shouted “Shame!” as an amendment intended to undo the Russell Amendment failed to pass.\u00a0 Shame<\/em>, of course, once referred to the awareness\u00a0of impropriety.\u00a0 Now, shame<\/em> is apparently used because what was once called impropriety isn’t being supported<\/em> strongly enough.<\/p>\n

In response to the defeat by House Republicans, Rep Steve Israel (D-NY) calmly said<\/a>:<\/p>\n

This reveals them for who they are. They are bigots. They are haters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Choosing not to support or affirm non-monogamous non-heterosexuality in all its forms — from promiscuity\u00a0to bestiality — is neither hatred nor bigotry. Choosing to protect citizens from being separated from society or discriminated against because of their religious beliefs is neither hatred nor bigotry.<\/p>\n

Demonizing a substantial portion of the American population for having<\/em> those religious beliefs, on the other hand, arguably is.<\/p>\n

Also at the Stars and Stripes<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

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

\n