Brutally Honest

"The military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith" (UPDATED)

There's a part of me that wants to dismiss this report:

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”. 

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith. 

(From our earlier report: 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.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military. 

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

Someone tell me this is wrong.

Someone tell me that this is being blown out of proportion.

Please.

UPDATE: The Pentagon has weighed in:

“The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution,” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said in a statement. “The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members.”

“Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” Christensen added.

He also said that “when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case by case basis.” He did not specify what the range of penalties could be.

The latest statement was aimed at refuting widely circulated reports in conservative media outlets that Christian soldiers could be court-martialed for sharing their faith.

Good to hear.  Lord, help me believe it.

You see, we should all be more tolerant

And the best way to advance the cause of tolerance is to be... you know... intolerant:

Topless activists of the protest movement FEMEN took aim at the Catholic Church on Tuesday, drenching Belgian archbishop André-Jozef Léonard during a lecture in Brussels, Belgium.

Four FEMEN members entered an auditorium at the ULB university in the Belgian capital, holding signs that said "Stop Homophobia" and "Anus Dei Is Coming." Flemish newspaper De Standaard reports that Léonard was giving a lecture on blasphemy and freedom of speech when the bare-chested protesters poured water over his head.

"This was aimed against Mr. Léonard's homophobia, but we also don't agree with other positions, like the one on abortion," one of the activists told news agency BELGA.

In an interview with Le Soir at the end of March, Léonard had said that gays should spend their lives celibate. The archbishop defined homosexuality as "a given that people find in themselves and whose origins remain somewhat mysterious."

On its French Facebook page, FEMEN said "if André Léonard has decided to inflict the punishment of abstinence and celibacy upon himself, Femen does not tolerate that he wants to impose that chastity on the gay community as the only remedy to what he defines as a disease."

The Belgian confederation of bishops strongly condemned FEMEN's actions, but said it will not press charges against the group.

I await the day FEMEN dumps water on an Imam at a mosque.

I will not hold my breath.

Army Reserve training brief - Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism are extreme

The image that follows was clipped from this Army Reserve training brief.

In response, the Archdiocese for the Military Services has issued a statement:

The Archdiocese for the Military Services and Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty recently became aware of a U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief that expressly listed “Catholicism,” “Evangelical Christianity” and other religious groups as examples of “religious extremism” alongside groups such as “Al Qaeda”, “Hamas” and the “KKK.”  The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist. 

According to an investigation and reply from the Army Chief of Chaplains office, the training in question appears to have been an isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army. The Archdiocese and the Chaplain Alliance explained that the Army can and should take steps to prevent such incidents in the future.The Archdiocese calls upon the Department of Defense to review these materials and to ensure that tax-payer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.

An isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.

Today.

But just wait a little while and I'm guessing it'll not only be condoned by the Army but instituted as policy by the government.

It's the direction we're headed in.

To deny this is to deny reality.

Jim Carrey ridicules Muslims

The Hollywood comedian was on twitter this past week making fun of radical Muslims and their hatred of others when.... what's that?  It wasn't Muslims?

Oh.  

The comedian/actor Jim Carrey tweeted earlier this week a hateful message about the Catholic Church mocking the sacrament of confession and the Church's teaching on sexuality. Here they are:

I get ppl's need 4 absolution bt being cleansed by a skunk won't make u smell better.You can ask God directly. #themiddlemanispopeless ;^•>+

I knew the sickess in the catholic church all stems from the denial of human sexuality.Gay or straight. #denyingsexleavesyoupopeless 8^•>+   

I don't know about you but i may go off the rails if they don't find a new Pope soon! #lifeispopeless

There r good Catholics bt if a good woman allows her kids 2 b molested by their step father bcuz she's afraid 2 b alone, is that good? ;^\>+

I just think denying who u really r while telling others who 2 b is hypocracy,but hey,worship wherever you want.U have my blessing. ;^P>+

Jim Carrey is very successful in Hollywood because he's very funny, not because he's informed or even coherent about the Catholic faith in which he was raised. I would inform Carrey that he's wrong on many counts when it comes to the Catholic Church.

There's much more and it's informative and intelligent.

Unlike Mr. Carrey.

Harry Belafonte: Obama should jail his opposition

It's not necessarily sad that Harry Belafonte would say such a thing.  

It is necessarily sad but more importantly revealing to know that many of Obama's voters would agree with the man.

Know that this mindset isn't, in the minds of many, as radical as you and I might think.

Now America, back to your reality TV shows and your video games

Chris Matthews removes all doubt

The man is a caricature, he's a joke, he's one of the biggest journalistic buffoons in the history of journalism.

I think at this point we can all say confidently that no one will ever unseat him.

I honestly don't believe that you can sink any lower than the depths the man has plumbed.

Are you ready to experience the worst of all asshattery?  Experience this:

"Many people today would have you believe that tolerance is the highest of the civic virtues"

Pat Archbold is taking on the redefinition of the word tolerant being pushed on us by cultural elites:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" -- Inigo Montoya

Among all the words in a language already so battered and bruised as to almost become unrecognizable, one word stands out for having taken the brunt of the beating.

Tolerance.

Tolerance has been so misshapen by the abuse that many people think that it means something opposite to its nature. After all the injustice the word has suffered, I am unsure if it can or even should survive. Nevertheless, I wish to testify to its true meaning, even if in eulogy.

So let us begin with the basics. Contrary to what you may have heard, tolerance of its own can never be a good thing. By its nature, tolerance means abiding a bad thing. Even in our diminished capacity, nobody would say that they tolerate something good. One doesn't tolerate ice cream. One tolerates liver.

Metaphors aside, to tolerate is to abide something wrong, something in error, something evil.

Now many people today would have you believe that tolerance is the highest of the civic virtues, but it is not and never can be. Abiding evil can never be a virtue in and of itself and therefore it can never be demanded of anyone, least of all a Christian.

There are many reasons Christians may legitimately tolerate error, but they all must have one thing in common, the good of the sinner. We sometimes tolerate such error in the hopes that eventual realization of the folly will lead to repentance and eventually to truth. But there are also some errors and actions that cannot and must not be tolerated for the good of the sinner and the good of society.

In a pluralistic society such as ours, we have wisely limited the power of government to be intolerant toward religion in the recognition that such power is more likely to stamp out the light of truth than the darkness of error. In essence, we tolerate only some government.

But just because we have not empowered the government with our right to be intolerant toward religious error does not mean that we have forfeited this right. All such rights not delegated are reserved to the people.

However, as Americans we have generally found that we do not wish to restrict the right of men to practice their religion as they see fit, even if in error, so that we may practice it freely in truth. This is the bargain we have made and it worked, until now.

In order for this grand religious bargain to work, the spread of religion must be limited to its public effectiveness and its persuasive power. But nobody should ever be forced to embrace the tenets of another's religion. But this is exactly what is being demanded of us today.

Under the guise of a misshapen tolerance, it is being publicly demanded that we submit to and even embrace error. That is not tolerance, it is its antonym.

Good stuff... and he's not done.

Join him, finish, pass on.

"The level of hatred, unfounded fear and misinformed people was astoundingly sad."

That from a journalist describing the people he encountered at the Chik-fil-A restaurants he was assigned to cover yesterday as chronicled in a must read and pass around post put up by GetReligion's Mollie Hemingway:

The Facebook page of Mark Krzos is like many others. He’s married to a beautiful woman. He really likes the band Ween. He posted an awesome Wilco performance from Jimmy Fallon the other night. He lets friends know that he’s incredulous that one congressman views an HHS mandate as a serious problem. He hopes that Gore Vidal rests in peace. There’s some hockey stuff. He really doesn’t like Mitt Romney. Like, really doesn’t like him. He is a huge fan of President Barack Obama. He’s got a post with the note “We are a PROUD city” showing the letter Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent Chick-fil-A telling them that their CEO’s religious views meant that there was “no place” in Boston for Chick-fil-A. There’s some other anti-Chick-fil-A stuff. Some mockery of creationists. The usual.

Why am I mentioning all this? Because of another part of his Facebook page that an alarmed reader sent me. Turns out he’s a journalist. A staff writer for the News-Press, a Gannett newspaper in Fort Meyers, Florida.

...

So with all that said, let me share with you staff writer Mark Krzos’ note:

RE: Chik-fil-A controversy
I have never felt so alien in my own country as I did today while covering the restaurant’s supporters. The level of hatred, unfounded fear and misinformed people was astoundingly sad. I can’t even print some of the things people said.

The first comment comes from another journalist named Joseph Anthony. He lists his job as “Anchor/Reporter at WBBH NBC2/ WZVN ABC7.” His comment is “agreed.” A lively comment thread ensues. Krzos claims that the people he met were talking mean about “immigrants.” When someone says something about bigots, he responds “It was like broken records of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and a recitation of half-truths and outright lies.” There’s some negativity about Fox and then Krzos says:

Such a brave stand … eating a goddamn sandwich.

Various people “like” these comments, including some more reporters. His friends beg him to print the goods and he says he couldn’t because it was just too vile and, well, the people wouldn’t give him their names. People suggest he just refer to the rampant “racist and homophobic slurs” and another friend writes “I’ll be on the side with scientists, hippies, NORMAL white people, fellow black folk, mexicans (and street gangs), gays , and technology vs. Jim Bob and Bobby Sue and all the toothless rednecks that REALLY hate America.” Mark Krzos “likes” that comment.

When someone with a Jerry Garcia profile photo suggests he should have thrown waffle fries at the customers — or challenged them to a game of “gay chicken” — he responds “John… too bad there wasn’t another reporter around to go with me and film it. I really wanted to do the interviews on camera while eating out of a bucket of KFC.”

I’m leaving out a ton of stuff on the thread. The slurs against “Bible-based haters.” The discussion of how to physically attack Chick-fil-As. The messages were shared by reporters, including someone from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel who says it was “something to consider” and a FoxNews.com reporter who says in response to someone that “we know that’s not the case” that the customers are standing up for free speech...

There's more and it honestly needs to be read, digested and passed on.  Repeatedly.

This goes to the heart of the cultural battle being faced.

My wife and I went to Chik-fil-A yesterday.  There was no hatred.  There was no unfounded fear.  There were simply a lot of people who were polite, orderly and hungry.  And there were Chik-fil-A staff who were doing an outstanding job meeting the needs of those polite, orderly and hungry people.

It was America.  It was the manifestation of what may very well become a movement.  It was a ton of people sticking their collective fingers in the eyes of people represented well by this journalist.

And this is causing serious angst amongst the Left.  There are veins in necks bursting across the fruited plain (no pun intended).  And they'll stop at nothing.

I hope you folks read this piece by Ms. Hemingway and yesterday's piece referencing Sally Quinn's desired outcomes.

It should open your eyes.  

It should prompt you to consider taking up a side if you're one yet to join the fray.

The culture war is on whether you're sitting on the sidelines or not.

And there will be collateral damage. 

The Left won't stand for what took place today at Chik-fil-A restaurants across the country

Sally Quinn:

Today is Chick-fil-A Day. No, it’s not a public holiday but for many Americans it is a religious holiday. Mike Huckabee,former Arkansas governor and former Republican presidential candidate had declared Wednesday, Aug. 1, as “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” in support of the company “whose executives are willing to take a stand for Godly values.” He wants people to celebrate those values “by simply showing up and eating” at the fast food restaurant.

Exactly what are those values, which have not only been espoused by Huckabee, but Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty (maybe not such a smart move as he’s being vetted for veep by Mitt Romney)? 

According to the president of the company, Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A is “very much supportive of the family…the biblical definition of the family unit.” What that means is that Cathy, whose father started the company in Atlanta, is against gay marriage.

Bishop Gene Robinson, the first gay Bishop in the Episcopal Church, has a new book,”God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage.”

“What would Jesus think about two men and two women getting married?” he asks in his book. “According to the accounts of the life of Jesus as recorded by the Gospels, Jesus never said anything about sexually intimate relationship between people of the same gender. Nor did he comment on sexual behavior between people of the same gender. Period.”

Neither did Jesus say anything about child molestation or bestiality.  Should that now also be affirmed by the masses? What's your point 'Bishop' Robinson?

Ms. Quinn goes on:

While Christians will be showing up at the restaurants in droves today, there is a movement afoot by “The Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation” to stage kiss-ins in front of many outlets. Mayors of Washington, San Francisco, Boston and Chicago have expressed their outrage at the company policy.

What to do if you feel the same way?. The idea of a boycott is so clichéd. Even the kiss-in doesn’t really make the point.

Gays and lesbians could start applying for jobs at Chick-fil-A. Get in there. Become managers, take over the places.  Gays could begin patronizing Chick-fil-As and I don’t mean carry out. Make the restaurants the gay hangouts of the community.   Gay partners and Married gays could begin taking their children there. They could start having birthday parties for their kids. They could have Gay pride events there. (They have an events manager – just call)  They could even have gay weddings there.  

Today supporters of freedom, those who oppose the kind of intolerance shown Mr. Cathy by people of power, have won a battle.

But this war is far from over.  

'If you’re expressing outrage at Chick-fil-A, why the hell were you not protesting President Obama before his “evolution” on the issue...?'

The question of the day to throw back at gay fascists and their ignorant supporters:

Seriously, this is the most absurd fake outrage I’ve ever seen in my life. Don’t get me wrong, I support gay marriage. However, I also believe in free speech. Sure, free speech occasionally comes with consequences — you have the right to say what you want, but you’d better be willing to live with it, but many of the people who have gotten on a soap box about this don’t exactly have their hands clean. As Conor Friedersdorf notes, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel worked for President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama at times when they opposed gay marriage:

Many voices have beat me to clucking at Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for suggesting that its appropriate to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening a Windy City store because its CEO opposes gay marriage. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh explained why the threatened action is a violation of the First Amendment. Glenn Greenwald insisted that all liberals should object to the awful precedent it would set. Wrote Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, “You don’t hand out business licenses based on whether you agree with the political views of the executives. Not in America, anyway.”

All that’s left to say is what Michael Brendan Dougherty alludes to: As mayor of a safely Democratic city, Emanuel avows that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.” In his initial formulation, since walked back, opposition to gay marriage is cast as so awful a transgression as to render one unfit to sell Chicagoans fast food! Yet Emanuel had no problem helping Barack Obama to attain the most powerful office in America while Obama was against gay marriage, a position the president clung to until this year. Nor did he shy away from Bill Clinton, helping him to win the Democratic primary in 1992 and serving as an adviser even after Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

And that’s another point that should be made. If you’re expressing outrage at Chick-fil-A, why the hell were you not protesting President Obama before his “evolution” on the issue just a couple of months ago?

That goes to the heart of the matter and it's refreshing to see it come from someone who says he supports gay marriage.

I pray he'll see that this has little to do with gay marriage.  It has everything to do with setting up that which will be used to quash religious liberty.