Here's one story I can't wait to see play out.
In the name of religious tolerance--if by "religious tolerance" you mean "let's silence those evil Christians"--the Pentagon has issued an odd notice that military personal may face a court martial for speaking about their faith.
According to the Breitbart story, Pentagon personal appointed by President Obama (Bless His Holy Name) have met with the God-hating Michael Weinsten (no jokes, please) about this new policy, which amounts to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for religious people. From the story:
(....Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)
So a solider, airman, Marine, or sailor can be essentially charged with a federal crime for exercising the free expression of their religion. Because the definition of "proselytizing", according to Weinstein (no jokes!) is so poor, you get a sense from the story that it truly is a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" arrangement.
Of course, one could say we need to make an apples to apples comparison here. Getting kicked out of the military for buggering somebody in the butt isn't the same as being locked up for the Lord, but I disagree.
Nobody said gay soldiers couldn't be gay, they just couldn't talk about it or be open about it, and there were consequences if they were caught. Weinstein isn't saying religious soldiers can't be religious....they just can't talk about it....or be in the open about it....and, according to this article, there are consequences if they are caught. Sounds similar to me.
Can we not assume that a "court martial" of a religious person for speaking of their beliefs is the same as gay soldiers being "dismissed" for their life style? Is it now fair to discriminate against religious people because of the earlier gay discrimination? Which, by the way, was put in place by another liberal?
Apparently, under the current regime it is. I suppose if Christians were nicer to gay people, this wouldn't be a problem. See? It's all God's fault for being intolerant. If only he was as wishy-washy as everybody else.
Liberals have a fear of religion (if by "religion" you mean "Christianity") because it creates an allegiance to something other than the State. And that is bad. Christianity must be destroyed, just like it was in the Soviet Union. You can't have the subjects relying on God when the State is supposed to be god. All of the other religions are milk toast hokey traditions that don't mean much, and liberals know that, so those other outfits get a pass. Notice Weinstein doesn't mention that it's a no-no to to a Buddhist.
If liberals don't like something, it must have power they can't control (guns, anybody?) so to that I say....Praise the Lord....And pass the ammunition.
And, I'm serious, no Weinstein jokes. It's too easy.
ABOUT: Brian Drake is the author of The Rogue Gentleman and co-host of "Drake & The Deacon" on RadioSlot.Com.