More Disingenuousness from Christianists on DADT Repeal

I will admit that while utterly devoid of truth and veracity, the Christianists never seem to rest when it comes to seeking special rights for themselves. The expect the entire nation - indeed, the entire world - to revolve around them and their hatred towards others which they attempt to justify by wrapping themselves in religion and the Bible. Now, with the prospect that DADT might be repealed, the insidious Christianists are talking seeking "consciencious objector" status so as to not have to serve in the military with openly gay service members. The premise is ludicrous because, if taken to its logical conclusion, these Christianists will be claiming that based on their interpretation of the Bible, they cannot serve along side blacks, Muslims, Hindus, non-Christians, and others who do not live in accordance with their exclusionary religious bigotry. Perhaps a proper response would be to place such Christianists in segregated units which could be left to their own devices if attacked by enemy combatants. The New York Times has a piece on this latest Christianist bullshit. Here are some highlights:
*
Ms. McNeil got a hot-line call that raised a new issue: the caller said he considered homosexuality an abomination and wanted to be a conscientious objector because he could not serve in the military alongside gay soldiers.
*
“I told him I wasn’t trying to criticize, but he was already serving with gays, since there’s lots of gays in the military now,” said Ms. McNeil, the executive director of the Center on Conscience & War, a nonprofit group that supports conscientious objectors. “He said, ‘Yes, but now if they come out, they can be forced out. But if homosexuality is actually allowed, I will be housed with somebody who’s sexually attracted to me.’ ”
*
In the “don’t ask, don’t tell” cases, Ms. McNeil concluded that there was no legal basis for a conscientious objector claim.
*
The legal standard, she said, is that the person must be conscientiously opposed to participating in war in any form, based on a sincerely held religious, moral or ethical belief. And the person must have had a change of heart since joining the military, when the person signed a form saying he or she was not a conscientious objector and did not intend to become one.
*
“In the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ situation, they’re not opposed to participating in war, they’re opposed to who they’re participating with,” Ms. McNeil said.
*
Like Ms. McNeil, Mr. Jolly said opposition to homosexuality would not be a valid ground for a conscientious objector discharge, whatever happens with “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
*
“It’s like when blacks and whites were integrated in the armed services,” he said. “They have to learn to live together.”
*
Believe me, I am not anti-religion - or perhaps more specifically organized religion per se. However, on the other hand, since the beginning of time, literally millions of innocent people have murdered and otherwise died because religion and its toxic fruits. Would the world really be a worse place if religion did not exists? One does have to wonder.