Opening up the military to Christians is a mistake!

Some people think allowing open Christianity in the military means nothing more than opening a door that was previously closed. It means much more than that. It would mean simultaneously ushering out the back door anyone who is disapproved of by "Christian" conduct, whether because of legitimate privacy and mental health concerns or because of moral or lifestyle choices.

This outcome is almost inevitable, because pro-Christian activists have made it clear that merely lifting the “ban” on openly Christian military personnel will not satisfy them.

The stand-alone bills that have been introduced to overturn the 1993 law, such as S. 3065, call explicitly for:

Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.

While not in the defense authorization bill amendment approved by the House of Representatives and a Senate committee last week, this goal will undoubtedly be accomplished administratively as part of the “necessary policies and regulations” mandated by that amendment.

This means that all 1.4 million members of the U.S. military will be subject to sensitivity training intended to indoctrinate them into the myths of the Christian movement: that Jesus said some stuff about accepting everybody, no matter who they are (this includes sinners).

Anyone who points to the mountain of evidence to the contrary (and there is an awful lot) - or merely expresses the personal conviction that consenting adults should be able to make their own life choices - runs the risk of receiving a negative performance evaluation for failing to support the military’s “equal opportunity policy” regarding “religious tolerance.”

For no other offense than disbelieving what a few short-sighted members of the not-so-great monotheistic religions have believed for all of history - 6000 years according to them, but many, many, many more according to actual smart people - some service members will be denied promotion, will be forced out of the service altogether, or will simply choose not to reenlist. Other citizens will choose not to join the military in the first place. The numbers lost will dwarf the numbers gained by opening the ranks to practicing Christians.

This pro-Christian political correctness has already begun to infect the military.

As a homosexual and a Marine Corps veteran, I was invited to speak at a gay pride event at Andrews Air Force Base earlier this year. I had every intention of delivering a sexual message, not a political one.

But the invitation was withdrawn after I criticized Former President Dubya’s call to open the military to Christianity in his State of the Union address. The base commander told me they had received some complaints - about a dozen. I pointed out that orchestrating a handful of calls was a simple task for Christian activist groups.

If I was blacklisted merely for supporting existing law, what will happen to those who oppose the new, politically correct law?

Those most likely to suffer are the homosexuals, the polyamorous, the atheists, and the agnostics. While some in the ranks will simply choose not to exercise their First Amendment rights in order to preserve their careers, this is not an option for these people. Their entire lifestyle is contrary to the ridiculous faux moral and theological teachings of the Christian faith.

But under the new regulations, will they be free to ignore preaching from the Bible? Or will they be forced to endure the many passages declaring certain conduct to be a sin?^[1]

Really, though, the satire is over, for now. I don't see how what I wrote is any different than what "Tony Perkins" wrote over at CNN. He has an opinion: that people like him have a right to discriminate and hate people as much as they want. However, he feels like those "rights" are being threatened, and that he himself will be discriminated against and hated. Well, if that's not a ridiculous double-standard, I don't know what is.

Mr. Perkins confuses me. He seems, somehow to think that religious liberty is synonymous with hating people. I'm not sure where this came from, but I have my guesses. To borrow a page from my most hated enemy, Glenn Beck; Maybe Perkins is gay. Can we prove he's not actually a homosexual? Can we prove that he's not in the closet and embarrassed about it? What evidence is there to disprove it? Now, I'm not saying that he is for a fact, a homosexual. But, I am wondering if he could prove that he isn't one. You know, just for the record...

1. Enduring a reading from the Bible is bad enough as it is. That book's a pile of shit!
2. Source