Video: Military officers endorse Christian ministry while in uniform; Update: Group says DoD gave permission
posted at 8:05 pm on December 11, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
DoD regs say the uniform’s prohibited “when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.” The Military Religious Freedom Foundation says this video, depicting the officers shown below endorsing the work of the Christian Embassy ministry, violates those regs. Does it? There’s no disclaimer on the video page itself, but there is one on CE’s “About” page, where the video is linked.
Watching it as a layman, I don’t draw any inference of Service sanction from the fact that they’re wearing the uniforms. But given the worries about indoctrination at the Air Force Academy, I can understand people taking a zero-tolerance approach. The latest PDF report from MRFF explains their issues with the video; the e-mails toward the end from servicemen who’ve encountered proselyzation on the job are also worth your time.
Incidentally, MRFF isn’t always such a stickler about rules and regs. Their blog post on this subject reprints a Washington Post article in its entirety, which is a mighty expansive interpretation of the concept of fair use.
Click the first image to watch.
Update: Christian Embassy is wondering how this can be against regulations if the Defense Department gave them permission to film inside the Pentagon. Did they give them permission to interview uniformed service members, though?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Nattering nabobs with way too much free time.
JammieWearingFool on December 11, 2006 at 8:10 PM
General George Washington spoke of God. So did General James H. “Jimmy” Doolittle…
Zorro on December 11, 2006 at 8:16 PM
Islam is Devil worship.
There.
I said it.
I actually meant it.
Mohammed sold his soul to the Devil in a cave 1400 years ago and his people have suffered ever since.
venmax on December 11, 2006 at 8:18 PM
Or maybe there really are some of us in the military who don’t appreciate the implication that our particular brand of religious worship (or to be wholly inclusive, lack thereof) may not meet our superiors’ expectations. If they say it while in uniform, it’s as good as policy.
To bring it closer to home for you…I’ve worked for one of the people featured in that video.
James on December 11, 2006 at 8:31 PM
The Gospel is offensive to people. Always has been and always will be.
GoodBoy on December 11, 2006 at 8:32 PM
Not just his people.
Bob's Kid on December 11, 2006 at 8:32 PM
Given that the vast majority of people in the armed forces have strong Christian beliefs, does this surprise anyone? And given the fact that they are not permitted to practice their religion in countries like Saudi Arabia, is anyone surprised at how devoted to one’s faith a soldier might be? Would you prefer an army of Christians helping the poor and oppressed, or the Muslim armies of Darkness, killing and maiming and generally wreaking havoc?
Jewel on December 11, 2006 at 8:43 PM
Jewel, I would go with C, do the math,the result is less carnage in the long run.( of course it would not include maiming and havoc,just breaking things and killing bad guys)
bbz123 on December 11, 2006 at 8:45 PM
may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted
I suspect that there are very few who actually believe this implies service sanction and they all probably keep their tin foil hats on tight to prevent any dangerous mind rays.
This is PC run amok. The burden of proof really ought to be upon the MRFF.
I went looking for their Board of Directors and found out that it includes Reza Aslan.
I assume there’s only one Reza Aslan. More on him from Robert Spencer here and here and here and from Front Page Magazine here.
How about getting Franklin Graham to sit on the Board as well to kind of balance things out? Then there might be some credibility to a Board like this.
As it is I really kind of guess that the basic purpose behind this Board is to prevent any expression of true Christians within the Armed Forces.
INC on December 11, 2006 at 8:58 PM
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
As a 20+ year vet of the AF I appreciate knowing that the men and women who are making decisions for our military are seeking the wisdom of an all-knowing almighty God.
James,
I’ve worked for those who lacked any religious belief and shunned and/or mocked me because of mine, it goes both ways. However, I took it as a great compliment to be mocked for my Lord.
Venmax,
Totally agree, Islam is worship of Satan and is a false religion to mock the one true God.
Centurion68 on December 11, 2006 at 9:03 PM
Don’t military clergy wear uniforms? I think they do. The guy in M*A*S*H did. Father whatsisname. Seriously though, how petty. Soldiers pray in uniform, in tanks, in aircraft, on ships. Certainly they’re advocating a belief in God in plain sight of others. What’s the freakin’ difference when you get right down to it? Oh yes, separation of church and state. The much misused and misaligned fall-back line.
thedecider on December 11, 2006 at 9:07 PM
From Yahoo:
This is such a propaganda statement. The Christian Embassy “about” link in Allah’s post above states:
Well, I first heard of Campus Crusade about 37 or 38 years ago. They are certainly not a “radicalized” group.
This seems to be disinformation spread to promote fear of Christians and Christianity.
Buzzwords like “radicalized” are really the beginning of a setup for the shaping of attitudes against evangelical Christians.
INC on December 11, 2006 at 9:09 PM
I don’t comment often, so in case it’s not remembered by any, I am an evangelical Christian.
INC on December 11, 2006 at 9:14 PM
Jihadwatch.org, Faithfreedom.net, Prophetofdoom.net.
I saw a commercial for a National Geographic “special” The Secret Lives of Jesus. “Jesus was a difficult child”, “He had a relationship with a woman”, “He didn’t die on a cross”.
I am all for any review of Christianity. The DaVinci Code, Christmas’ pagan roots - etc. But where is the public review of Islam?
It is way past time, but like so many have said before - it may take another attack to open so many minds. Until then we have Holocost deniers, and 911 Truthers, Israel bashers.
I find it interesting that the very impressive Brig Gen Vince Brooks is back in DC. Could it have been his strong Christian beliefs? What conclusions does that lead him to?
All the “religion of peace” talk is designed to cause introspection - for Muslims to review Islam and prove it. Instead we get NOTHING. But others are taking a look at Islam. Those who believe they they know good from evil (not those who believe good and evil can not be defined). These people are hopefully taking a hard look at Islam.
Should Muslims eventually stand up and talk about the good in Islam, it will be too late. They will find an environment where people have an opinion and the debate will be intolerable for them. The result a new round of violence - which once again should prove the point.
Agrippa2k on December 11, 2006 at 9:14 PM
FYI, one person in this thread has already been banned and more on the way. I’ve had it with the vilification of Muslims. Criticism is one thing but this is way out of line.
Allahpundit on December 11, 2006 at 9:16 PM
Centurion, you don’t get it…it simply doesn’t belong as part of a command climate. You were likely mocked and shunned because you were proselytizing to your coworkers. The inclusion of biblical quotes where they are not really warranted, as in your post above, is usually a good indicator of this.
We make a big deal about our conflict with Islam here on HotAir…why is that? Because our freedom of religion is precious to us. The general perception is that if they had their way, we’d all be forced converts to Islam or we’d all be dead. What makes a career-intimidating set of eagles or stars on someone’s collar any different than a sword pointed at your neck when they use their position of authority to advocate not just religion, not just Christianity, but specifically the ‘wahabbi Christianity’ of evangelism?
Sure, it’s all wisdom and all-knowing and almighty when it’s something you agree with. But it destroys unit effectiveness when it’s not your particular brand name. This may come as a shock to you, but being told that something you’ve believed in for your entire life is wrong breeds resentment, not epiphany. Being officially told the same by someone who has power over your career is much worse.
James on December 11, 2006 at 9:30 PM
Our Father in Heaven, before we go into battle, every soldier among us will approach you each in his own way. Our enemies too, according to their own understanding, will ask for protection and for victory. And so, we bow before your infinite wisdom. We offer our prayers as best we can. I pray you watch over the young Jack Geoghegan that I lead into battle. You use me as your instrument in this awful hell of war to watch over them. Especially if they’re men like this one beside me, deserving of a future in your blessing and goodwill. Amen.
Oh, yes, and one more thing, dear Lord, about our enemies, ignore their heathen prayers and help us blow those little b@st@rds straight to Hell. Amen
kiakjones on December 11, 2006 at 9:32 PM
I wonder whether people think that this was a violation of military regulations. Or this. Or this.
baldilocks on December 11, 2006 at 9:34 PM
Oops, I was trying to clean up the language a little, that link leads to nowhere.
kiakjones on December 11, 2006 at 9:34 PM
As a prior service member I have to say that the videos are inappropriate at least.
One of the first things drilled into you is that no public statements, in uniform are allowed. (Paraphrasing)
That rule exists to protect the military as a whole.
The point behind the rule is not allowing anyone wearing a uniform to say things like Ching-Chong or “VENT” about people saying Ching-Chong and having their statements being misconstrued as being official military statements.
If you dress Michelle up in a uniform (that would be HOT) and allow her to “vent” about “Ching-Chong”. Liberals would be in an outrage about military letting Michelle VENT.
Conversely,
If you dressed Rosie up in a uniform (that is not hot) and allowed her to “view” her opinion liberals would say Rosie speaks for the military since she is wearing a uniform.
Since the rule has been in place for I don’t know how long every service member knows about it.
I don’t care if you are Christian/Muslim/Jewish Liberal/Conservative Republican/Democrat.
Public statements in uniform have been banned and should not be allowed.
F15Mech on December 11, 2006 at 9:39 PM
James,
It sounds as if you were put in a difficult situation at work. If an official criticism of your beliefs from an officer was made to you or a direct or implied threat was made to you that was wrong.
However, please do not swing the pendulum to the other extreme and use an emotionally loaded term like
INC on December 11, 2006 at 9:45 PM
Also look at Jesse Macbeth.
Remember how wild nutroots went when he “came forward”.
By coming forward I mean lied about his service.
F15Mech on December 11, 2006 at 9:54 PM
INC, I am an officer and I keep my Christianity to myself in the workplace, as is appropriate. I have not had an overly difficult personal situation due to my non-evangelical beliefs, but in dealing with my subordinates I have had to walk the tightrope between on-duty and off-duty things that military evangelicals refuse to acknowledge a lot of the time, as was clearly shown in the video.
As for evangehabbism, I calls ‘em like I sees ‘em. From an outside viewpoint, even if the tenets are totally different, there are more similarities in method and desired end-state than there are differences. If that makes you feel uncomfortable about your particular brand of Christianity, you are always free to either reflect on my analysis as a fellow Christian or blindly reject it as that of an infidel.
James on December 11, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Kinda OT: Former CENTCOM spokesman General Vincent Brooks was the guy who smacked down–in a rather gentlemanly, military-man fashion–the mostly annoying Michael Wolff during an Iraq press conference, so I’m glad to see the former again in any context.
baldilocks on December 11, 2006 at 10:12 PM
You seem to have phrased both of my choices in a way that automatically places me as lacking in some manner in your perspective. Without knowing what or who you have come in contact with, I have no way of knowing if the information or interaction process or person was at fault. In other words, I don’t know if you were interacting with a caricature or the real thing or perhaps the real thing badly or wrongly expressed.
How about if in future interaction with me, if our paths cross again, you examine my words and attitudes of that moment, without prejudging from former experiences with others?
INC on December 11, 2006 at 10:21 PM
During my thirteen-year stint in the the AD USAF, I ran into numerous “Jesus guys.” (This was before I became a “Jesus girl” myself.) Most of them were a pain in the butt–except for one memorable gentleman. Clarence was a five-foot four, 140-pound “little” guy who always had a smile and a genuine good word for everyone. Though we all knew that he was a Christian, he never proselytized–that I knew of. He just let what the Lord had obviously done for him be the example.
Clarence was on the USAF weight-lifting team. As I recall, he won a championship for squatting something like 800-pounds in his weight class. (I may be mis-remembering the weight, but it was something phenomenal like that.) On his back-belt, he had written in bold black letters “Lifting for Jesus.” All of us heathens remarked that that “lifting for Jesus” was some serious stuff if it could make such a diminutive guy so strong.
baldilocks on December 11, 2006 at 10:32 PM
INC, you expressed your discomfort by calling my term ‘emotionally charged.’ I can’t think that any different perspective of your words and attitudes would change that.
Incidentally…as an object lesson, you didn’t seem to like it very much when I likened your religion to something I consider to be ‘wrong,’ and I have absolutely no influence over your life. Now turn it around, add command influence, and think about what it would feel like to be proselytized to by your supervisor or commander.
James on December 11, 2006 at 10:56 PM
Had such a request come across my desk for review, I’d have likely advised against it based on the potential that it would be seen as an official endorsement of a private organization. But the DODI cited does provide for exceptions to the general prohibition.
DOD personnel can participate in private orgs in their personal capacities–they cannot do so (in or out of uniform) and attempt to coerce subordinates to join/donate money/etc.
So even though I would have advised against it–nothing I saw in the video leads me to believe that DOD is endorsing Christian Embassy, either explicitly or implicitly. The video participants speak of their own beliefs and whatnot–not DOD policy.
As an additional note–that MRFF “compliance” PDF is garbage. It speaks of emails sent from an Air Force account that include bible verses as being “illegal” since, in their words “according to regulations, [such accounts] should be used solely for military business.”
Wrong.
The Joint Ethics Regulation (DOD 5500.7-R), paragraph 2-301, permits limited personal use of gov’t communications equipment (including email) when authorized by a superior (such authorization is is generally presumed unless expressly prohibited).
Provided the communications don’t reflect adersely on DOD, do not overburden the communications systems, are of reasonable duration and frequency, etc–then such personal use (including emails that cite bible verses) are permissible.
So yeah, garbage….
armylawyer on December 11, 2006 at 11:01 PM
Or, if you’re going to villify Muslims, is it too much to ask to be on topic when you do it?
frankj on December 11, 2006 at 11:36 PM
Except when it comes to denigrating evangelical Christians with your inflammatory rhetoric? Nice…
CliffHanger on December 11, 2006 at 11:59 PM
As an evangelical wahhabi Christian, I’d like to reply to James’ nonsense, but I’m afraid I’m behind in my busy beheading schedule.
Also, I have to organize a march for tomorrow, declaring that we must behead those who insult Christianity.
Right after I get done stoning my sister because she was caught holding hands with somebody she wasn’t engaged to. Oh, and then there’s the gay guys next door that I need to drop a wall on. In the name of Jesus, of course.
*rolls eyes*
Misha I on December 12, 2006 at 12:54 AM
Anyway, as to the actual topic of this post, I happen to agree that public statements while in uniform are inappropriate at least, be they in favor of politics or particular brands of religion.
Unless you’re a chaplain. I believe a reasonably good case can be made in favor of allowing a chaplain to speak publicly about religion. I may be going out on a limb here, but speaking publicly about religion would seem to be well within a chaplain’s MOS.
Unless the world has truly gone utterly, completely insane.
Misha I on December 12, 2006 at 1:02 AM
As a former military member, what they did was flat out inappropriate and probably a violation. The thing about serving in the military is that your other considerations come second, and yes, that includes evangelism. The uniform carries an authority and respect that must be protected from people’s personal views or opinions. I wonder what people would be saying about those military members if they were proselytizing Muslims instead of Christians. Probably a lot of bad things.
Like everything else, when you are physically wearing the uniform you are restricted from a lot of activities you could do normally. Had they been in civilian clothes there would be no problem. Orders and orders, and even in the military orders trump religious values in many cases.
NPP on December 12, 2006 at 1:36 AM
I thought you could give your heart to Jesus.
But your butt belongs to the Corps?
A wise man said that.
Dan866 on December 12, 2006 at 1:53 AM
James,
“‘wahabbi Christianity’ of evangelism?” ? Interesting comment and very telling. I am trying to remember the last Christian Jihad video of a beheading…hmmmm..nope, don’t recall any.
I also wonder if all of those officers didn’t have someone’s permission for this too. I can see one or two doing this on their own, but it was recorded at the Pentagon and other government facs. Something tells me this was done with someone’s approval higher up (and no, I don’t me Him). The presence of the Chaplain makes me wonder if this wasn’t done in coordination with the Chaplain’s office at the Pentagon. Anyone?
Centurion68 on December 12, 2006 at 5:44 AM
Oops. I meant to say “(and no, I don’t mean Him).”
Centurion68 on December 12, 2006 at 5:45 AM
It is not unlawful, against regulations, or any other form of “wrong” to speak of one’s faith or an honest wish that a fellow member learn to share that faith.
But sometime during the last 25 years or so the PC steamroller has done it’s best to wipe out any semblence of religion from the military.
I spoke openly and regularly about Jesus, the Bible, and historical Christianity during my career. I never once “shoved my religion” down anyone’s throat, though a few hyper-sensitive types tried the claim. After a couple of tours, I made it a part of my check-in procedure at a new base or command, to inform my superiors that I was a Christian who would obey God before man, and would not hide my faith.
I know all about compartmentalization, and when and where communication should be limited. Discussing my faith while trying to prep a fighter for launch isn’t a good thing. Or during a General Quarters drill, or many other situations. The other extreme is quashing all religious conversation outside of chapel, and that is more wrong, yet that seems to be the wish of the PC-cuffed brass.
Freelancer on December 12, 2006 at 6:55 AM
Lets see. The topic is about Christianity in the Military. The DoD even gave permission to video tape inside a military installation.
Now we have an issue about military members wearing their uniforms while being interviewed.
On one hand, if you interview military members in their civilian clothes, you’re not going to have the same visual impact and you will weaken the story.
On the other hand, there is a legitimate concern of the interviews while in uniform can be misconstrued as official military policy.
It seems to me that the easy solution is to simply have a disclaimer scrolling across the bottom of the screen during the video. Problem solved.
.
GT on December 12, 2006 at 7:03 AM
Question for those of you who are against espousing Christian views in uniform. Is it ok for those in uniform to say G-D Dammit? How about the occasional “J Christ!” when they are expressing surprise or anger? I heard those disrespectful terms more times than I can count while on active duty. I figured if others can use my Lord’s name in vain I should be allowed to use it correctly.
Centurion68 on December 12, 2006 at 7:31 AM
Come on, Misha and Centurion, for every beheading tape there’s a Fred Phelps funeral stunt. You could argue that the severity is different, but the tactic is exactly the same…use outrageous behavior to get your religious message out.
And before you claim that Phelps is not representative of the majority of Christians (with which, incidentally, I wholeheartedly agree) note that just like we complain about ‘moderate Muslims’ no major Christian religious leader has officially denounced him.
James on December 12, 2006 at 7:59 AM
Why use the New York Times as a source along with the anti Christian ACLU mirroring pro Islamic Military Religious Freedom Foundation? Who cares what these people think? INC thanks for noting that Reza Aslan is on their board!
One of the books promoted on the MRFF website…
With God on Our Side: One Man’s War Against an Evangelical Coup in America’s Military
by Michael L. Weinstein, Davin Seay
I could understand it if Christianity was founded by a pedophile who promoted terrorist and orginized theft. But I don’t recall at any point in their beliefs calling for our conversion or death…
Timber Wolf on December 12, 2006 at 8:12 AM
James,
Please, comparing a nut job like Phelps to the Zarqawis of the world who behead, blow people up, etc.? A bit of a stretch dontcha think? I find it amazing you would compare a funeral protest to the slaughter of innocents on video. If you are going to attack my faith, at least come up with some more rational arguments.
Bottom line is that people like you want religion (especially Christianity) removed from any area where you might encounter it and you put up these lame arguments and try to compare Christians to Islamists to justify removing God from the public arena. If the DoD gave permission for this filming then it is not a violation and you need to get over it.
In case you were wondering, no, I don’t have a problem with Muslims in the military doing the same thing. Even at my last base there was big write up about the small Muslim contingent that worshipped on base and a local event they were having ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION. It even showed them in uniform! I had no problem with it whatsoever. I think we all need to grow some thicker skin and not be so offended every time someone advocates a belief or viewpoint we don’t agree with.
Centurion68 on December 12, 2006 at 8:13 AM
My cousin (a Jew) was in the Army. At one point, a superior officer called him in and informed him that he (the superior officer) was “concerned” for my cousin’s soul, and that his failure to accept Jesus was a problem.
While my cousin politely declined the proffered salvation, he was somewhat offended at the attempt.
In a system like the military, with a rigid rank structure, the suggestion that adherence to a particular religious view will be intimately connected with career success is grossly inappropriate.
morganfrost on December 12, 2006 at 9:00 AM
THANK YOU BALDILOCKS!!!!
After I finish crying, I plan to get those photos moving on to other places where more folks can see them and use them as the inspiration for thier own prayers.
seejanemom on December 12, 2006 at 9:01 AM
So, Centurion, what are you saying? Phelps is a nutjob but that description doesn’t apply to Zarqawi? Or Phelps may be a nutjob, but darnit he’s our nutjob?
In case you missed it in nearly every post of mine in this thread, I am a Christian. But I believe that a person’s religion is a matter that should remain between that person, his family, and God, and it’s nobody else’s business. I don’t think it’s appropriate to proselytize at all, and it’s doubly offensive when it’s done in an official capacity.
If the principles and procedures of your religion are so good that you can honestly claim it to be better than mine, it should be readily apparent to me and not require any “Jesus, apply directly to the forehead…Jesus, apply directly to the forehead” techniques.
Or the person who gave permission was a member of the club and did so improperly.
James on December 12, 2006 at 9:06 AM
Oh, the humanity! American military officers advocating Christianity!?! They must be infidel Crusaders!!! OK, enough with the political correctness crap. Saying military guys can’t practice their faith while in uniform is ridiculous. One, we’re not an athiest country. Two, why do we have service chaplains then? (My father was one) The whole “freedom from being offended” rap is getting old. And “freedom from proselytization”? What are we, Saudi Arabia? Come on.
CP on December 12, 2006 at 9:31 AM
Many years experience in the military and knowing lots of good people of different faiths has shown me the following:
Normally we will pray silently in our way. Group activities are voluntary.
Proselytization is bothersome in a diverse environment such as the military.
A few years ago I had to go give my sample for a urinalysis sweep. Normally I had no problem delivering and going back to work. If you are unable to use the bathroom you can’t leave until you do. The one time this happened to me I happened to sit next to a guy who was seriously into his Amway sideline job. Most excruciating 20 minutes I have ever spent! Some people see the unsolicited witnessing much this way.
Recently the DoD allowed a fallen service member to have the Wiccan symbol to be put on his marker. Honor his service don’t judge his choices no matter how tempting it is to do.
And I apologize if I offended any Amway salespeople.
Bradky on December 12, 2006 at 9:54 AM
“I am all for any review of Christianity. The DaVinci Code, Christmas’ pagan roots - etc. But where is the public review of Islam?”
Some cartoonists tried that once remember? There was calls for their beheading and threats on their life. One “can’t” mock the Muslim religion or face death. Feel lucky we live in a society and have a religion that is tolerant of mockery…
bentman78 on December 12, 2006 at 10:05 AM
James,
You mentioned in an earlier post about a lack of religious worship and it gave the impression it applied to you, that’s why I said what I did.
In case you missed it, the Bible has several passages urging believers to share their faith and “give a reason for the hope” we have. Even the Jews were supposed to influence the world around them.
As for the Phelps/Zarqawi issue, you still don’t get it. Phelps is NOT our nutjob and yes the Zarqawis are nutjobs. Read this part slowly, it might help - My point is that it is a stretch to compare a bunch of wackos who protest (wrongly I might add) funerals to a bunch of bigger wackos who slaughter innocent people and put it on video.
Your last statement about the approving authority being a member of the club…too hilarious! I take it you are into finding conspiracies behind every grassy knoll?
Centurion68 on December 12, 2006 at 10:30 AM
I challenge all you true believers to help Allahpundit, self-proclaimed agnostic, to see the light. lol! Oh, yeah, this will get me banned!
EF on December 12, 2006 at 10:34 AM
If Allahpundit is an agnostic, how can he be against people that are crticizing a religion that he does not accept as valid. If it doesn’t exist can you criticize it? If you yell at someone who isn’t there are you offending or just plain crazy.
I know AP, you do not like (and neither do I) the wholesale attack on any people of faith. Just a little rhetorical fun.
right2bright on December 12, 2006 at 11:08 AM
I think our founding fathers would be ashamed of the persecution of our military for this. It may not be appropriate in some people’s eyes but persecution for one’s religious beliefs was anathema to those who came here for religious freedom. The first amendment actually gives us the constitutional right to offend because freedom of speech and freedom of religion are offensive to those who do not share the same points of view.
Rose on December 12, 2006 at 11:52 AM
The disturbing part of the story I heard (on the radio) was that this organisation has an office in the exclusive E wing of the Pentagon. That is what makes it wrong. The milatary is the arm of the US government, and as such they should not expouse any one tenant of faith. The seperation of Church and State sums that up quite nicely.
The other issue here is the sense of impropriety. IE, that officers who are not part of the club are being passed over for choice assignments and promotions by officers that have joined the club. This is a problem, if True.
I understand the people take their religeons very seriously. But their has to be a disconnect between an official and his religeon. If a General wants to hold a volountary prayer meeting on a base I am all for it. But if that General takes names and assigns all the people that did not show up to latrine duty then the General should be held accountable.
As to the other comments, quit attacking each other. The biggest problem with religeon is that any immagined slight causes people to take it way to seriously and go into instant defense mode. People are attacking Islam, Evengalacls, Christians etc. Thats not productive. James Is a christian with a set of Beliefes. Centurian also has his sets of beliefes. Same as Hassasan Mohamad (I just made the name up, I know its a pun). Which off these are correct? Does it matter to an outsider? Nope. Respect each other, and move on. If you are right then those that disbelieve are going to burn in hell anyways, so thats not a problem. You told them about the truth, they didn’t listen and thats the end of it. But at the very least respect that they have used their god given right of free will to make that decision.
But all the bickering is starting to sound like grade school (my god can beat up your god).
Finaly (as if I have not alienated enough people) Some people have attacked Islam. Islam is a religeon that has been trapped in time. Both Chritianity and Islam were pretty bloody a few thousand years ago. Christianity grew though, while Islam stagnated. Now the Christians have (mostly) given up their thirst for blood while the extreme muslems revel in it. In time Islam will outgrow this phase. Perhaps not. Point being, is it better to dismiss them all, or try to work and bring some light into the darker aspects of Islam and help the religeon mature into a moderate and respectfull religeon of the 21st centuary?
Dismissing something is easy. Trying to make it better is hard. Their will be much fighting and bloodshed in the coming years. Hopefully we can erradicate the violent State religeon of islam in the same way the violent state religeon of Shintoism was erradicated in Japan.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Wyrd on December 12, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Major General Catton lived a few doors down the hall from me at the Academy as a cadet. He is the best the Air Force Academy produces: good student, excellent judgement, relentlessly fair, effortlessly competent. There are a handful of guys I knew who became generals from the Academy, but Jack was the only one I predicted would earn stars. It was an easy call.
I had no idea of Jack’s religious devotion and I rubbed shoulders with him for a year. He just seemed like a super cleancut positive guy to me. There were a few Baptist guys who wore their religion on their sleeves. Jack wasn’t one of them. I was a bit surprised to read about his religious devotion in the Washington Post this week.
As for pressuring Air Force cadets into one religion or another, I never saw nor heard of such a thing. Most cadets are more devoted to sleep than religion. You can’t be religiously indoctrinated if you’re sawing logs in your rack, which is where most cadets reside when they have a choice. If you ask most cadets if they want to get up before reveille to attend chapel, they’d laugh and roll over. I never heard of any prosletyzing when I was flying fighters either. It just never happenned.
It’s a big Air Force, though. If you search hard enough, you’ll probably find an example of anything you’re looking for. However, in my experience the only religions fighter jocks profess are flying and sex. Everything else is a distant third.
The reason that so much of the US military is acquiring a fundamentalist Christian tone is that those are the churches which support the military and see the profession of arms as an honorable calling. Most of the other Protestant religions are infected by peace weenies who disdain the military, patriotism, and America. Consequently, Baptist chaplains are more likely to enlist than Presbyterians.
Maybe Jack and the other generals should have doffed their uniforms and done their witnessing in mufti, but deep down I think this is all trivia. We have a war to win and we need guys like Jack, our very best, to win it. Let’s not shoot our own leaders, shall we?
Tantor on December 12, 2006 at 12:15 PM
That’s all well and good, Rose, until one person’s religion, or what they see as their religious duty to convert the masses, comes into conflict with another person’s right to have their own religion without it being trampled upon. In this particular case, the right to attempt to entice others to a religion is less important than the right of the other to hold their own religious beliefs without having to fear negative career consequences. Nobody’s persecuting evangelists…they just don’t want to be persecuted by them.
Evangelists tend to be a lot like liberals when this topic comes up. It’s always my rights this, my rights that…there’s never any consideration of anyone else’s rights or the responsibilities that go along with the use of those rights.
To those who say I should get a thicker skin…well, is it your aim to be taken seriously or is it your aim to be blown off? Aren’t you happy that I’m taking you at your word that you’re really honestly trying to convert people? This pushback is just what comes with the territory…you stirred the poop, now you have to lick the spoon.
As for the ‘grassy knoll’ comment, do you not perhaps think because the allegation is about high-ranking officers who tend to be in charge of a lot of stuff, that the approval to film the spot might be just a little bit suspect? OK, I’m willing to entertain the notion that the legal/PA offices weren’t co-conspirators per se. However, maybe they felt pressured by the evangelist Generals to sign off on it or else their careers would be in jeopardy. I know I’ve had to knuckle under to that kind of pressure before.
James on December 12, 2006 at 1:00 PM
James, if you say you are a Christian, but don’t follow his teachings:
What are you following? Now I agree that in the military, the problem of doing it in uniform is an issue, and is problematic. But as Christians, we are called to spread the good news, not just keep it to ourselves. A fine line, which the so-called thumpers do cross(heh) at times, but it is what He taught. But beating folks over the head does little to help either side.
Now Phelps is a loon, no doubt, but to place him in the same magnitude as the islamo-loons is a bit hyperbolic, no? I see your point, but try to keep things in perspctive, please.
Crusader on December 12, 2006 at 1:06 PM
I always think it odd when someone throws out the phrase “separation of church and state” as if the state is some monolithic pillar in the desert. The state is made of men, and to ask a man to seperate his moral values (drived from religion) is impossible. A persons real faith and their life is inseperable. The argument that christians are forcing their religion is mostly a straw man argument. I receive many more enticements to vote one way or the other, I am the recipient of many more shop at this store or the other store, buy a certain auto, than I have ever been approached by a evanglistic christian. When someone is uncomfortable with their faith, they tend to be a little sensitive. If I ask someone if they went to church on Sunday, many would get defensive…however, if I asked them if they went to the mall shopping or did they watch that football game on Sunday, they would not have a problem with that question. The non-christian should lose the chip on their shoulder, quit being a victo-crat and realize religion is a part of life, just like eating, driving, shopping, etc.
right2bright on December 12, 2006 at 1:22 PM
Crusader, not every Christian religion is an evangelist one.
Spreading the word is not more important than living by the word. Jesus taught about a lot of things, not just about preaching. Otherwise there’d be nothing to preach about.
James on December 12, 2006 at 1:28 PM
Wyrd, great post, and many great points. The above was my favorite. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that your post was read; still the bickering continues.
dalewalt on December 12, 2006 at 1:34 PM
Islam cannot outgrow their religion. They, by decree, must prevail. War is an option, bloodshed is an option, death to infidels is an option, death to apostates is mandatory. Chritianity, with all of its historical faults, have none of these tenents writtin into their texts. The past 400 years in America have proven that, with effort, many religions can survive, and thrive, under a Judeo-Christian dominated society. No such state exists, nor can it exist, under Islamic law. Unless they rewrite their religious books, and denounce Mohammad’s teaching, they must prevail.
right2bright on December 12, 2006 at 1:51 PM
I have a sneaking suspicion that AP posts stories like this knowing that the resulting comments will bolster his opinion of Christianity. /sarc
morganfrost,
On the supposition that your portrayal of the event involving your cousin is accurate, he was harassed and had cause to report it. If a superior officer tells a person of one faith that their religious choice is a “problem”, they have crossed the line.
It’s a very delicate matter to be in uniform and speak to subordinates about matters of faith, but it can be done. First, you don’t call someone into an office and directly challenge their faith/lack of faith. Absolute no-no. When a “door” is opened between two people, the subject can be raised. Very often that requires waiting for the other person to speak first.
One exception I can think of was a young man who got drunk and arrested in a foreign port. He’s already been in trouble with the command, so was facing fairly severe treatment. He had been married for two years and had an infant son. The command was loathe to take food away from his family by fining his pay, so he was awarded four three-day periods of confinement on bread and water (not consecutive days).
I visited him, and found that the only book allowed him in the brig was a Bible. We spoke about his welfare and state of mind briefly, then I told him that what was happening was the best possible thing for him. He needed to grow up, had already shown that human authority had no hold on him, was likely to end up leaving on a dishonorable discharge, so it was time that he looked to God to understand what he needed to do. I told him to drink all the water they’d let him have, if only to fake his stomach into thinking it was less empty (but also to flush his system of the alcohol), and read as much of the New Testament as he could manage in his three days.
When I retired nine years later, he took leave and worked out military flights to come cross country and attend. He had turned himself into a career serviceman, a good husband and father, and a Christian. I take no credit for his change, he and God did it. But what if I had taken the PC route and refused to speak?
Freelancer on December 12, 2006 at 2:03 PM
That is why there can be no seperation between man and his religion.
How fortunate for him, and maybe more fortunate for you.
right2bright on December 12, 2006 at 2:12 PM
Did I ever said it was? But you are one who made the sweeping statement that I believe that a person’s religion is a matter that should remain between that person, his family, and God, and it’s nobody else’s business. Now you are saying that preaching is part of that? How? Look, St. Francis of Assisi said:
which i think is what you are getting at, and I agree, to a point. But if that point is that you just keep it to yourself and never say a word , and just think that people will see it in your life, that is a where we diverge.
Look, both sides need to take a chill pill on the spread of their beliefs, as both have become abrasive. I meet just as many annoying evangilical athiests as I do Christians, so there is plenty of blame to go around. But if both sides would be a bit less hyper-sensative, the world would be a better place. But I’m not holding my breath.
Crusader on December 12, 2006 at 2:14 PM
Dale, Thanks, I try to toss a little humor in all my posts :)
Right2bright,
I am afraid you are probaly correct about that.
The scenerio I see as being most likely is that their will be a world encompassing confligaration between Western values and Islam. When the dust settles and the West wins (I am biased, I root for USA all the way) then the survivors of Islam will moderate their viewpoints.
History has proven that religeous texts are rewritten to suit their times. Martin Luthors Schism, the King James version of the Bible, All the different subsets of Christianity all prove that.
This is a war of ideas though. It is not about land or treasure. It is about a rigid, demanding and unrelenting theology crushing out the theologies of all free men.
back on Topic though,
Freelancer, you did the right thing. You gave a troubled man some information and good advice. What he found in that book (and cell) enabled him to turn his life around and become a good man who seems to be proud of himself.
Wyrd on December 12, 2006 at 2:30 PM
No, what I said was that preaching doesn’t have to be part of that. This is where your Christian religion and my Christian religion differ. I don’t think your religion is wrong any more than I think it is right…people are different, and different people need different things in a religion. I’m content to just believe what I believe without telling other people what to believe.
The insinuation from another poster about ‘being uncomfortable with their faith’ is just holier-than-thou BS. If someone pokes your arm enough times, you get annoyed. This doesn’t mean you’re uncomfortable with your skin…it means some jerk is making your skin uncomfortable.
James on December 12, 2006 at 2:43 PM
And kudos to you, after listening to Robert Spencer interview with Michelle, it is even more obvious that they have a better chance of changing the direction than I could imagine. It appears that many of their doctrine is detemined, not by scripture, but by analysis and commentary.
The texts of the bible are pretty well established now after a couple of thousand of years, what does change is commentary. Luther did not change any bible text, he brought it to the masses, from latin to german, than made his 95 thesis about the Catholic Church. His “schism”, Hu’s and Bonhoffers commentaries, etc. are exactly that, commentaries, not their to replace the word of God. Luther made that quite clear. That he was subject to wrongful divining of God’s word. That the bible is the “sole rule of faith”.
right2bright on December 12, 2006 at 3:02 PM
You are exceptionally mistaken on the above statement. I take it you’ve never heard that the Dead Sea Scrolls vindicated the translation of the Old Testament portion of the King James Bible. Had you referenced any of the recent, popular “feel-good” versions of the Bible, I’d agree with you. Those things are NOT translations, but paraphrasings utilizing contemporary philology.
Freelancer on December 12, 2006 at 3:06 PM
No?
That would come as a surprise to the president and chaplains of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Or the Presbyterian Layman, for that matter.
These 15 Des Moines area pastors would disagree too.
Not to mention that, should you harbor an understandable and righteous wish to insert Phred Phelps and his Inbred Phucktards’ placards in anatomically incorrect places, you’d have to be patient and stand in line behind quite a few of us “wahhabi” Christians.
Misha I on December 12, 2006 at 3:12 PM
Yikes….hope you enjoy your buffet religion.
Crusader on December 12, 2006 at 3:15 PM
Can’t resist doing the superior dance, can ya, Church Lady Crusader?
James on December 12, 2006 at 3:19 PM
Heh, you pick and choose what you wish to believe, by your own admission. So in effect, you view religion as your personal buffet. Am I somehow wrong, or missing something? Nice adult response, by the way.
Crusader on December 12, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Freelancer,
I could be mistaken, would not be the first time.
Wyrd on December 12, 2006 at 3:46 PM
All these bible thumpers and not one cares about Allahpundit’s soul!
EF on December 12, 2006 at 4:49 PM
Allahpundit has soul?
You haven’t seen him try to dance…
Mr. Bingley on December 12, 2006 at 8:23 PM
That said, that video is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen, and whatever complete total clueless idiot at DoD ok’d it should be sent to North Dakota to clean Minutemen with a soft-bristled toothbrush; it’s pure propaganda for the jihadis.
The last thing we frikkin’ need is a nice video to be played around the world that shows the Pentagon full of Christian generals and admirals giving the impression that they are only living to do the Lord’s Work in taking back the Holy Land from the Saracens. Let’s just fulfill every little stereotype that Osama and every other terrorist scumbag has been peddling since Day 1. It’s actually a pity that they don’t mention the Holy Land (well, maybe they do later on but I could only watch the first half before it annoyed me so much that I shut it off) so that a Protocols of the Elders of Zion reference couldn’t be worked in somehow; hell, that would have been the perfect Christmas gift for Osamalamadingdong; barring that the general saying “I serve God first, then my family and then my country” should now become the Poster Boy for the moonbats to fulfill all their prejudices about the US military.
And just for the record I am a Presbyterian, and a fairly active one; the last religious post here inspired this.
Mr. Bingley on December 12, 2006 at 8:39 PM
… who cares?
One Angry Christian on December 14, 2006 at 7:33 PM
I served 31 years in the Air Force and know several of the folks in the video. I also have met Mikey. IMHO, in this case, it is a clear situation where one side is trying to do the best they can for their country and the people around them, and the other side (Mikey) wants to make sure no one offends him.
The old saw that there are no athiests in foxholes has gone the way of the dodo. Partly this is because our society has changed from the simple days before the rise of the baby boomers. But now the P/C, multicultural offense seeking crowd are doing all they can to make sure no one will accidentally get exposed to any kindness, if it is generated by Christian values. This is not only wrong-headed, it is cruel because it robs people of the comfort that a belief in Jesus gives. He may not be the only path to God (I believe He is), but Mikey and his ilk are doing Wormwood’s work for him.
Spurlee on December 15, 2006 at 3:52 PM