Must read: Mikey Weinstein on religious indoctrination in the military
posted at 10:40 am on December 15, 2006 by Allahpundit
It’s at Salon so you’ll have to sit through a 30-second ad before you can read it, but it’s worth it. Weinstein’s the founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which is leading the charge against the Christian Embassy for using officers in uniform for its promo video. I wrote about it a few days ago. I can’t do justice to the righteous indignation of the interview — and he does go too far at points — but this’ll give you a taste.
I get calls 24/7 from the soldiers, Marines and airmen. Unlike cops, they don’t have a union, they have my foundation, that’s it. They’re being tormented. And 96 percent of those who come flooding in, on fire with torment, are Christians, three-fourths of whom would be traditional Protestants: Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians. The other one-fourth are Roman Catholics. These are Christians being preyed upon by evangelical Christians — pray and prey — and being told that you’re not Christian enough, therefore you’re going to burn in a hell of fire…
[W]e’re not going to stop, we’re not going to ever stop, we’re going to lay down a withering field of fire and leave sucking chest wounds on these people that are trying to destroy our Constitution. This is not a Christian-Jewish issue, and it’s also not a political spectrum, left or right issue, it’s a Constitutional right and wrong issue. These officers, and what’s happening in that video, simply by appearing in a video that is blatantly and vociferously sectarian, by simply doing three things in that video, they should be court-martialed. That would be circulating blood, reflecting light and breathing. That’s all they had to do and that alone would have been enough.
Read it all.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Whenever they throw out that caveat, you know it is a left-right issue.
Evangelicals, Al-Qaeda, all the same, right?
Good grief. The military doesn’t have enough on its plate; they have to deal with this nonsense.
JammieWearingFool on December 15, 2006 at 10:46 AM
He’s a Republican.
Allahpundit on December 15, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Out.Of.His.Gourd
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 15, 2006 at 10:50 AM
I can understand and agree with Mr. Weinsteins’ assertion that religious indoctrination is dangerous to have, especially in our military. But this crap about as dangerous as al-Qaida? Whenever someone spews something like this (you know, like Pres. Bush is as dangerous as al-Qaida), they lose all support from me.
dalewalt on December 15, 2006 at 10:52 AM
This is the biggest bunch of horse hockey I have ever heard. I want to see his telephone logs and hear the actual calls for these “religiously persecuted military”…what a pile of crap.
DoctorDentons on December 15, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Some evangelical Christians can be very spooky. Some have the “my way or the highway” mind set. I’ve encountered a couple on this website, and the culprits were shouted down by several of the non-evangelical commenters.
natesnake on December 15, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Oh, and they’re fascists also. This isn’t a must-read AP, it’s a must-keep-around-for-the-next-time-I-run-out-of-toilet-paper.
dalewalt on December 15, 2006 at 10:56 AM
Exactly. To me, this is all hearsay… as a lawyer he should know better.
dalewalt on December 15, 2006 at 10:57 AM
Uh, a bit full of himself also.
dalewalt on December 15, 2006 at 10:58 AM
GOD! GOD! GOD! JESUS! JESUS! JESUS! GOD! GOD! GOD!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 15, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Republican has nothing to do with it. JWF is right IMHO, it’s a left-right issue.
dalewalt on December 15, 2006 at 11:02 AM
96 percent of the complaints are from Protestants and the other “one forth” of the complaints are from Catholics?
But it’s not a Christian/Jewish issue?
Well it wouldn’t be if 120% of the complaints are from Christians…
Skywise on December 15, 2006 at 11:03 AM
My Brother is an F-16 pilot in the USAF. Went to the Acadamy and all that, I will have to ask him about this. He never mentioned it but he’s the laid back type that probably wouldnt mention it unless it came up.
Dash on December 15, 2006 at 11:04 AM
But… for the record, I would not be in favor of people getting in my face about my Christianity or lack thereof. At all.
Dash on December 15, 2006 at 11:04 AM
He may be a Republican, but he’s way off base. There are more pressing issues with the military, as far as I’m concerned.
Lincoln Chafee is also a Republican, and I have zero use for him.
JammieWearingFool on December 15, 2006 at 11:05 AM
What are you basing that on?
Dash on December 15, 2006 at 11:10 AM
There. I fixed it for you.
natesnake on December 15, 2006 at 11:11 AM
I actually pity this man. So paranoid by us “spooky” evangelicals. I often think of what Jesus had to say in the following passage when reading stuff like this.
Matthew 5:11 – “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”
I don’t take it personal, he’s fighting something bigger than all of us.
Centurion68 on December 15, 2006 at 11:12 AM
I’m not a fan of being proseletyzed to, but if you can’t tell someone to get out of your face, you probably have no business being the military.
Farmer_Joe on December 15, 2006 at 11:17 AM
The Christian Embassy video no longer works…? Did they pull it? There’s no mention on the website.
SilverStar830 on December 15, 2006 at 11:18 AM
It’s interesting that conservatives frequently refer to non-physical efforts to undermine America’s security as “hidden” or “secret” or “insidious,” things like gay marriage, the media’s assault on President Bush, secular humanists, feminist agendas, liberal ivory towers in academia, etc.: These are all portrayed as stealth attacks on America, things that pretend to be benign yet have huge evil potential to destroy/weaken/gayify America. None of these are dismissed as alarmist or untrue simply because they are not military, physical, or directly related to a dirty bomb. They are portrayed as cultural, moral or intellectual assaults on “what makes America America.” (for links on any and all of the above, see Free Republic, any page)
So, with all that said, why is an effort to impose an internal religion to our military any less dangerous than any of these other things? Why the automatic dismissal of the danger simply because it’s not Al-Qaida? Musgrave claimed gay marriage was the greatest threat facing America. If gay marriage trumps Osama, why not religious indoctrination in the military?
I’m not saying his claims are true; I’m not saying he can back them up; I have no personal knowledge of his story. But for those on this thread who instantly dismiss the comparison of unconstitutional proselytizing within our nation’s military and an outside terror attack as being equal in weight and threat, well, let’s just remember there are lots of people on the other side of the great left-right divide who claim social “perversion” and moral slippery slopes are going to bring America down any day now. If we want to avoid this type of framing on the left, it needs to be avoided on the right.
torrentprime on December 15, 2006 at 11:18 AM
I’ve had personal experience with “pushy” evangelicals, who turn on a dime on you and act like the spawn of Satan once they understand you’re not going to change your beliefs (I’m Catholic).
That said, this article is complete B.S. It’s not a violation of the Constitution if someone in the military is a jerk to you and thinks you should be a member of the Western Pre-Millenial Post-Reformed Branch of the Orthodox Baptist Calvin Lutherans.
The Military, I’m sure, has regulations dealing with harassment. That’s all this is. It’s not the fascist takeover of the military, worse than terrorism. Sheesh.
Sydney Carton on December 15, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Don Quixote has to joust his windmills after all. Who’s the bigger fool, the guy jousting the windmill or Sancho Panza following him.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 15, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Just for the record:
Some people telling me that I’m going to hell because I’m a Catholic does not settle well. Most sane people refrain from such blatant branding.
If someone believes in Christ, they are (usually) a Christian in my book. I don’t condemn other denominations so why should I tollerate someone condemning mine.
natesnake on December 15, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Skywise, you might want to scan that line again. Article said 96% of the respondents were Christian, and of that 96%, 3/4 Protestant, 1/4 Catholic.
torrentprime on December 15, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Maybe things have changed a bit, but I don’t recall any of this when I was in the military. I know we have quite a few readers who are currently serving. What say you?
I have to admit though … there are a few members of this blog who love to tell the rest of us Christians that we are all wrong and they are all correct. It is a bit sickening. It’s bad enough having to be preached to on a blog. I don’t think it would sit too well with me if it was done at my job.
Gregor on December 15, 2006 at 11:21 AM
For clarification, I became a Christian while in the military and it was not coerced or pushed down my throat. In my 20+ years of service, I never saw it happen either.
Centurion68 on December 15, 2006 at 11:21 AM
If you can show concrete examples of people not getting promotions or their being forced “baptisms” for a particular Christian sect, and I’ll be happy to jump on your bandwagon. However until then, it’s a mountain out of an ant-hill.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 15, 2006 at 11:21 AM
I’ve met thousands of military people in my career and never once met someone who felt they were being tormented.
Bradky on December 15, 2006 at 11:23 AM
It was an interesting read that could have been more compelling if Weinstein had dialed down the indignation meter just a few pegs.
I’m an evangelical and believe there is a biblical command to share the gospel with others. In the past few years, however, I’ve been disturbed by the methods that have been used to carry out that Biblical mandate. There is almost a feel of marketing in some evangelism, an approach that makes the sharing of God’s word feel more like a numbers game than a sincere method of bringing people to Christ.
The Biblical command in Matthew 28:18-20 was to “make disciples,” not simply win souls. I believe that doing so requires a more relationship-based evangelism, which is missing in these days of Christianity-plus, as C.S. Lewis called it. If the church grows aggressive in its evangelism (which I believe is different from having a zeal for sharing the gospel), then that will ultimately be counterproductive to “entrusting the word to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.”
Slublog on December 15, 2006 at 11:27 AM
This was a long time ago, but I also had an immediate supervisor NCO who was a Baptist and liked telling me that I was going to Hell for being Catholic. I’d just reply with “See you there” and a smile. Pissed him off to no end.
I’m not terribly concerned with officers appearing in the video, but if they’re pressuring subordinates to accept their faith, that’s just a little too Sharia for my liking. And if officers are doing it, then they should be court-martialed.
Pablo on December 15, 2006 at 11:28 AM
By the way, the video doesnt seem to be working for me. Can anyone tell me how widespread they are claiming this to be? God knows (pun intended) that there are .. uhh… fanatics.. in all groups. Perhaps the problem is a tiny subset of people being over zealous. That’s quite easy to believe, and should be addressed.
Yes you can tell someone to get out of your face, but after the 10th time it gets old.
Dash on December 15, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Time for another Great Purge – this time for all the servicemen and women who say “So help me God” at the end of their Oath of Enlistment.
He’s on his own crusade; hardly an objective POV.
blogRot on December 15, 2006 at 11:31 AM
There has been a push to accomodate the complaints of the few to make sure the vast majority behave properly. Whenever the military brass gets involved they are usually told to do it by the civilians in charge.
Good case in point was the whole “Don’t ask don’t tell” thing a few years ago. I think it is safe to say the majority of the top brass were not fond of that approach, but were compelled to give annual briefings on how to implement and enforce. It was the classic no win situation. Don’t actively look for gay behavior but here is the laundry list of things you should look for.
The poor Legal officer that briefed us the first time got the following comment from me “Come on sir, let’s just call this what it is, the generals don’t agree with the President’s mandate and are jumping through all manner of hoops to sort of accomodate it. But I would observe that based on the President’s own definition of sex, there is no such thing as a lesbian.” He kind of smiled and just commented that he was only delivering the mail….
Bradky on December 15, 2006 at 11:36 AM
Sniper One: Isn’t that what this expose and articles and discussions are about? Once the word is spread, people who may have been adversely affected can come forward and make their claims; if no one does and nothing can be proven, than apparently it’s not a problem. But for you to say, ‘Until I see direct harm it’s not important” misses the point: no one should have to face religious pressure with a national organization, especially “you’re going to hell” messages from peers and possible superior officers. Isn’t the concept of this troubling on its face? Isn’t the very idea being presented, that of religious pressure and possible even persecution, bad enough? WE have to see failure to promote proof? I mean, what part of this:
isn’t terrifying?
torrentprime on December 15, 2006 at 11:38 AM
blogRot, when did he say he wanted people with faith out of the military? Half the article is talking about his Jewish faith and Jewish kids in the military, and he also approves of individual expression of that and any other faith:
Where do you see his crusade or proof of it?
torrentprime on December 15, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Sniper: So unless someone shows you proof of failure to promote, it’s not real? Just an ant-hill? What part of this:
isn’t terrifying? So it’s ok if superior officers attack people under their command for being the wrong religion, but unless you can prove they didn’t get promoted because of it, it’s all good?
torrentprime on December 15, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Oh, give me a break! I’m the biggest fkn atheist and I have no problems telling people to get out of my face if I don’t want to be preached to. If in someway it was affecting people’s promotions or nonchristians were being discrimated against, that would be different. I have not heard that complaint.
EF on December 15, 2006 at 11:49 AM
So are Lincoln Chafee and Lindsay Graham.
I know this is right up your alley, AP, but the guy sounds over-the-top nutty on what might be a legitimate issue. It’s just hard to project, at least for me. I’m sure I’d be madder than hell if some Baptist started telling me my Christianity just doesn’t cut it, but his rhetoric is silly.
Jaibones on December 15, 2006 at 11:50 AM
I have no firsthand knowledge on this subject and won’t pretend that I do, but this story sounds false.
You simply don’t hear the grumbling from the troops that you would expect if these allegations are true.
Bob Owens on December 15, 2006 at 11:54 AM
So,
Non-evangelicals dictating what is right and wrong ideology is okay. But evangelicals doing it, is not.
Thanks for clearing this all up for me.
Lawrence on December 15, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Please, I’ve been told worse to my face when I was Mormon. If you can’t stand the heat, don’t talk religion. Walk away.
Beyond that, I don’t believe for a second that that kind of rabid crap is happening.
Unless they can prove that it is happening, it’s all just rumor. I’d believe sexual harassment before I believe this.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 15, 2006 at 12:03 PM
I’m an evangelical Christian, and I have witnessed people using the wrong tactics to win others to Christ. But it is most certainly NOT as big a threat as Al-Quaeda. Convert or die is not a tenent of Christianity. I’ve been visited by Jehovah’s Witnesses and I politely told them I was not interested. End of story. I didn’t whine about how my Saturday morning was ruined by radical Jehovah’s Witnesses. This guy protests too much.
Barntender on December 15, 2006 at 12:03 PM
I have been out of the Navy for a little over a decade, but when I served I don’t recall anything like what is being described here. As a matter of fact, I attended church on a regular basis before going into the military, but not so much after I joined. Those were actually some of the wildest years of my life, and I never felt any pressure to so much as attend church services.
So, unless it has changed drastically in the past few years, this sounds like it is blown waaaaaaay out of proportion.
n2sooners on December 15, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Barntender:Did the JW’s at your front door have the power over your career? Did they decide how your professional life went? If your boss comes over and starts talking about how you’re going to hell unless you convert, you just politely tell him/her you’re not interested and shut the door in his face? What if your boss is your superior officer?
torrentprime on December 15, 2006 at 12:13 PM
In six years in the military, I’ve never seen this, or heard of it happening. I don’t believe it does, and IF it does … it’s extremely rare.
Gregor on December 15, 2006 at 12:28 PM
This is a load of crap. I never saw anything like this during my time as a Naval officer and, if anything, military life and culture was far more likely to exorcise those who displayed any kind of “Christian” based principles or morals.
What is really happening is that we’ve raised a generation who has been taught that life’s ultimate aspiration is to be able to claim victimhood. If you can’t be a race victim because you are white, or you can’t be a gender victim because you are male, or you can’t be a sexual-preference victim because you are straight, you can at least be a religious victim because someone responded to your sneeze with a “God bless you”.
As for this being “unconstitutional”, oh brother.
When military personnel start voting on federal legislation or holding confirmation hearings, get back to me. Oh, and then there is that damned pesky “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” clause, we just need to get rid of that completely I guess.
Sorry, but you don’t check your religion at the door when you put on the uniform. Forced proselytizing from superior officers would be wrong, but then again, I don’t believe for one second that such an action is anything other than a hyper-sensitive over-reaction by the traditional professional military “bitchers”, a plea to be annointed with the holy oil of victimhood or an extremely rare abberation.
Fatal on December 15, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Religious proselytizing in the military isn’t anything new. During the Civil War there were “revival meetings” on a regular basis in the camps, both North and South.
Chas on December 15, 2006 at 12:37 PM
It’s really strange to me that stories like this come out of the military. Mostly because I have a lot of friends in the military who are … well … about as far from Christian as one can get.
I haven’t heard a peep out of them.
Seems like a few complaints and a few bad apples are making all the head lines. EVIL CHRISTIANS BURN THEM ALL!!! Well, at least the one’s who bother to talk about their faith whether they’re agressive and abusive … or not.
Yeah, I’ve seen that sort of thing before.
One Angry Christian on December 15, 2006 at 12:39 PM
I agree. I am an evangelical Christian myself and see nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. I just do not understand the mentality that everyone is right. Muslims believe that I will burn in hell, Evangelicals believe the way to heaven is through Christ alone, others believe we just die cease to exist, while others believe we are reincarnated.
Which is it? We cannot all be right. Sincerity of belief also does not equal truth. If Islam does indeed turn out to be correct, then I will be in hell – no matter how much I trusted in Jesus. Likewise, if Christianity is true, I will be in heaven and those that reject Christ will not. If the Atheist are correct, I will probably cease to exist. This is why I think it is important to discuss faith (not jam it down someone’s throat) as it is important to know what you believe and why you believe it. Too much is at stake.
jman on December 15, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Just start shooting the evangelicals. Simplify things. They’re creepy anyway.
spmat on December 15, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Hyperbole ain’t just a river in Egypt. I’m sure this sort of thing happens every now and again, but it isn’t nearly as pervasive as this nut makes it out to be.
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 15, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Now, if that had been directed at Muslims … it would have been followed by an immediate threat of banning from Allah. Will a comment such as this directed toward Christians receive the same warning?
Gregor on December 15, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Weinstein came out of the Class of ’80 at the Academy and became a lawyer, which is an atypical path for most graduates who want to be pilots. I think he might have been a White House Fellow, too. Anyway, he has acquired a reputation in his Academy class as being something of a dick.
In the case of religious indoctrination at the Academy, it’s crap. Only a minority of cadets go to chapel. I think what Weinstein is doing is building a mountain out of a molehole, taking a few isolated remarks and portraying them as mainstream. If you take any large population of people, you can find anything you are looking for or something close enough. In any college population, politically incorrect remarks are going to be made.
Speaking as a former weapon systems officer in fighters in the USAF, there’s no religious indoctrination at all. I could only tell you the religion of a handful of the fellow flyers in my squadrons. When you’re flying jets, it occupies all of your time, twelve hours per day. There’s just no time to focus elsewhere. I’ve never seen nor read nor heard about anyone being pressured about religion in the Air Force anywhere, anytime, for any reason. It’s pure crap.
Tantor on December 15, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Waiting for it……
quax1 on December 15, 2006 at 1:06 PM
torrentprime, I’m not sure I understand what you said. First you said
then you said
So on one hand you’re saying that evangelical Christians may be as dangerous as al-Qaida, then you’re saying that we need to avoid the ‘framing’ on the right.
That being said, could you please tell me who on this site has said that gay marriage is as threatening as al-Qaida? Please don’t just lump everybody on this site in w/the Freepers.
dalewalt on December 15, 2006 at 1:09 PM
Sounds like bullsh*t to me–I never encountered nor heard about any such thing in the military, and soldiers are going to talk to each other long before they talk to some stranger. And for the record, I’m agnostic, before anybody freaks out (or should I say, freaks out more), and accuses me of being unapproachable because I’m an eeeeeevil Christian. Nobody’s ever hassled me about religion–that kind of behavior would be unprofessional and bad for morale. Not to mention the fact that in the Politically Correct Army we spend wayyyyy too much time on things like “Consideration of Others” training for it to be systemic. If individuals do encounter religious harrassment, they need to report it–there are even anonymous hotlines they can use if they don’t feel comfortable going through their units.
This just sounds to me like another attack on the military and religion disguised as an attack on religion in the military. I could give a rat’s ass if he calls himself a Republican or not, Weinstein is just way too hysterical and over-the-top for me to take seriously. “Sucking chest wounds”? “On fire with torment”? Sorry, buddy, but if I had any soldiers “come flooding in, on fire with torment”, I’d send them down to the Flight Surgeon to get that looked at pronto.
ReubenJCogburn on December 15, 2006 at 1:12 PM
Now, if that had been directed at Muslims … it would have been followed by an immediate threat of banning from Allah. Will a comment such as this directed toward Christians receive the same warning?
Gregor on December 15, 2006 at 12:58 PM
I’m only expressing the current zeitgeist. That and indulging my bloated persecution complex through gallows humor.
spmat on December 15, 2006 at 1:15 PM
“Must read?”
He may or may not have a legitimate point (it’s hard to determine with all of the frothing going on), but the way he’s presenting it, the only way it can possibly be a “must read” is if you’re a psychology major and are looking for case studies in paranoid schizophrenia.
Misha I on December 15, 2006 at 1:32 PM
I’ve got 17 in. SSgt, USMC-R. I was the Catholic Layreader in Boot Camp, we had a Protestant, as well. No Jewish, we didn’t have any. I’ve never seen anyone, or heard of anyone, try something like that, either.
Weinstein says that
Liar. Our religious belief is printed on our DOG TAGS. There are chapels on EVERY base and camp. Can’t endorse a political position? We have VOTING OFFICERS that make sure you can vote absentee, and will provide ALL materials for ALL canidates and issues you need. Toothpaste? On 5 seperate occasions, I was involved in testing prototype systems, filled out countless questionaires. Remember Dragonskin body armor?
He went to the Air Force academy, became an Air Force lawyer. So, he probably never served with, or was stationed with, the Marines and Soldiers he hypes. The story of his daughter comes across as a distortion, if not an outright lie as well.
Mazztek on December 15, 2006 at 1:50 PM
LOL!!!!
Mazztek on December 15, 2006 at 1:51 PM
If this is happening GI’s would be bitching about it. Has anyone ever heard of a GI not bich about something that bothers them?
TallTim on December 15, 2006 at 1:58 PM
I was on two ships in the Navy. Underway, they would have a prayer over the 1MC prior to lights-out at 2200. All manner of annoying when you’re trying to get a couple hours of rack before the midwatch. It wasn’t so much a problem when we had a chaplain on board, he was pretty ecumenical. When he wasn’t there, though, the guy who did most of the prayers was a down-home, fire-and-brimstone, beat-the-Bible, did I mention the FIREY FURNACES OF HELL, YOU HEATHEN SINNERS!!!!! kind of guy.
That bothered me. The whole idea of praying over the 1MC is annoying to begin with. It isn’t like you can go anywhere to get away from it. Well, you can go, it’s just a hassle to get back from the ocean.
TABoLK on December 15, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Oh dear Divine-Mother-Earth. How absolutely terrible that you had to listen to a prayer for 1 minute a day.
dalewalt on December 15, 2006 at 2:14 PM
When Christians stop threatening the sinners with “you’re going to burn in hell” and starts beheading those who refuse to live as they should, or those who refuse to convert, then I’ll see it as a problem on the level with AQ. Until then, learn what most adults have learned and shut out what you don’t want to hear. We all have to deal on a daily basis with something we don’t like or things that irritate us, we learn how to deal with it and move on. A christian preaching the word according to him or being severely judgmental is hardly threatening. On the other hand, standing in line waiting for your head to be removed because you didn’t pray five times a day in a correct fashion is a TRUE threat. What is the old adage? Swords and IED’s may break my bones but words will never hurt………….
ritethinker on December 15, 2006 at 2:24 PM
I echo the others: in my five years in the Marine Corps, I never saw anything even close to this. Not once.
There is definitely some degree of religiosity involved in the military, but frankly I think it simply has to do with its role as a combat force – when death is something to consider, religion tends to pop up more often.
The saying “there are no atheists in foxholes” is a cliche for a reason. In the stress of military service, particularly in the combat arms, people’s minds turn to God.
But I never – EVER – saw anything like this. If anything, the Christianity I saw tended to be bland enough to be all-inclusive. I’m Catholic … but I often went to Protestant services (especially in Boot Camp) because they had more fun singing songs. Sounds lame now, but when you don’t have any free time and not much to sing about, playing Protestant on Sunday morning was the smartest thing I ever did. I doubt God minded.
The closest I saw to actual coercive preaching was a platoon mate who kept bugging me to go to his Mormon service. But that was ’cause he swore their were some hot babes there. So I went one Sunday, and he was right. It was worth the trip. Not my theological cup of tea, but the babes were indeed hot. The Mormon folks were nice enough. And if I remember right, they had some seriously awesome cookies.
This story can be summed up with one word: bullshit. Or is that two words?
Reminds me of liberals when they tell us about poor troop morale …
Professor Blather on December 15, 2006 at 2:30 PM
Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh …. the guy was in the AIR FORCE?
Well that explains everything. No wonder.
Professor Blather on December 15, 2006 at 2:52 PM
Sorry Lawrence, but I’m going to tune-out evangelicals that are quick to tell Catholics that we are going to “burn in hell”. I’m funny like that.
If an evangelical believes that his lineage has been followers of Christ for the past 2000 years, well I have some bad news for them. Considering the Catholic church carried the torch of Christ for 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, that would mean that 75% of their lineage is currently “burning in hell”…. of course that being based on some evangelicals perception of Catholics.
natesnake on December 15, 2006 at 2:55 PM
I have been in the Air Force for 27 years and I have to say that the military is one place that enforces the rights of others more than any place I have ever seen. If a group of people want to get together and pray or play basketball that is their choice. If they film a soldier voting he is pursuing one of his rights. In my experience if someone in the military attempts to inflict his beliefs on others it is the recievers right to listen or not. If the person trying to push his views goes overboard it is dealt with. As with any society thier are exceptions, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Sven on December 15, 2006 at 3:13 PM
sooo. should we believe Mikey? Or all of the testimonials of people who’ve recently or are still in the military.
dalewalt on December 15, 2006 at 3:20 PM
All of us who have served, or are currently serving in the military are to stupid to make an accurate assessment.
At least, that would be the answer you would get from john Kerry and liberals.
We’ve just been brainwashed by the evil Christians! We don’t know any better.
Gregor on December 15, 2006 at 3:27 PM
Hey hey hey I resemble that remark! LOL
Bradky on December 15, 2006 at 3:32 PM
Not to point out the blisteringly obvious, but isn’t the whole article some classic projection?
When I re-read it, it strikes me that HE’S pretty clearly bigoted – and that he’s attempting to project his own feelings on others. The hatred in his piece literally drips off the screen. Did he really use the word !@#$suckers? An attorney and an air force officer – and that’s his idea of eloquence?
Ironically, he reminds more than anything else of anti-Semites, who claim the Joooooooos are all out to get us. It’s classic projection. If you’re Black and racist – you see racism everywhere. If you hate Christians – you go looking for this sort of thing, searching through your own prism of hate.
The problem is Weinstein. If he’s right, if this is rampant, then by all means address it. But it’s not widespread. It’s pretty much unheard of.
The only place it’s rampant is in his head. He’s a bigot. And thus assumes we all are.
Professor Blather on December 15, 2006 at 3:36 PM
Please feel free to point out where I said it was terrible?
I said it was annoying. To put this into perspective, how would you like it if I read the Lord’s Prayer through a bullhorn right next to your ear every night around midnight or so? I’ll even use a feedback squeel for the bosun’s pipe, just to complete the experience for you. If you’d like it, we can see about setting that up for you. If you wouldn’t like it, then Hell awaits you with FIRE and BRIMSTONE you UNREPENTANT SINNING HEATHEN DOG!!! :P
My issue wasn’t with what was said, though the hellfire and brimstone guy was more annoying than most (mostly due to his increased volume), but with the fact that anything was being said at all at that time of night. Even then, it was obviously hardly an Al-Qaeda level issue.
So spare me your ‘divine-mother-earth’ Gore-ist dogma.
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
A quote from some obviously unimportant guy.
TABoLK on December 15, 2006 at 3:44 PM
Hopefully, evangelicalism in America will continue to whither on the vine. God willing, there will be a revival of a robust Calvinism and Reformed confessionalism in the American church.
My sister goes to the Air Force Academy and can attest to the looniness and hypocrisy of many of these evangelicals. Apparently, Ted Haggard’s church is within view of the gates there and many of the cadets and officers attend. Many cadets will later go out and sleep around or debauch, yet maintain a holier-than-thou attitude. I’m sure Ted Haggard’s recent actions will pull the wind out of their sails, however.
I was in the Navy, and my one experience with the DESRON chaplain was not positive. He practiced a weird moralism. He had the “purpose driven life” book with him when he came aboard. Evangelicalism, as it’s now defined, is detrimental to our military. Rather, we need Christianity.
PRCalDude on December 15, 2006 at 3:59 PM
Horsepoop. Ever hear of the Equal Opportunity office present on every military installation? How about the Inspector General?
Needless to say, allegations of intimidation or using your official position improperly (unwelcome proselthyzing sure as shyte qualifies) are treated very seriously.
Allah, as with your post on the “Christian Embassy” video–you’re simply wrong in giving this guy credence.
armylawyer on December 15, 2006 at 4:07 PM
I retried from the Air Force in 2005, and after 25 years I have never seen or heard or even been briefed about any religious pressure or indoctrination of anyone. It’s pure crap.
BDU-33 on December 15, 2006 at 4:20 PM
Going to church makes you no more a Christian than walking into a barn makes you a cow. Just because someone says they are a Christian does not make it so. Please do not project the actions of a few on the majority.
Even the best Christian is not anywhere near perfect, which is why we need Christ in the first place. I became a Christian because of Christ and his example – not because of the behaviour of those around me.
People are free to judge Christianity any way they want. I just ask that they base their judgment on the teachings of Christ, who was perfect and not on the actions of man, who is not.
jman on December 15, 2006 at 4:25 PM
I was in the service also, I had to put up with a lot of stuff I didn’t particularly want to listen to. And I’ve talked to many friends/relations that specifically have served in the navy… are you saying that the 2200 prayer over the 1MC is the ONLY announcement over the 1MC? At night? Seems to me a warship is a 24hr/day mission. One friend was on (I think) the Connie, and he had to put up with jets thumping down on his roof all night. Sounds like your problem is with the message, not the medium of that message.
Oh, and my Gore-ist dogma was sarcasm.
dalewalt on December 15, 2006 at 4:26 PM
Another lesson on what hate and prejudice can do to the mind. But don’t we get enough of this kind of thing from your DU links?
I was five years in the Army without a problem or even hearing a rumor of problem. This guy is so full of shit I don’t know how come the pressure on his fingertips from typing doesn’t make him explode.
I don’t know why you keep pushing this cretin.
Donnah on December 15, 2006 at 4:31 PM
No, I’m not going to read it all. After reading the excerpts I really don’t care what this guy has to say, and I think that by pushing this guy’s message, which is a very extreme message and one that is at odds with the vast majority of your readership, including me, you are putting preaching your own views ahead of the interests of your audience. You know, the same thing the liberal media often gets criticized for…
So, way to turn off your readership, AP. Your atheistic views are the biggest issue seperating you from your readership (and most Americans in general), and I don’t think it is a good idea from business perspective to emphasize this divide and drive a wedge into it by pushing your views on your side of this divide onto your readers.
As an aside, I think KP was overall every bit as successful turning you to the left as you were in turning her to the right. hah.
kaltes on December 15, 2006 at 4:53 PM
By the way I was in the military and the most I ever had religion “pushed” on me is when, as a unit, the chaplain led us in a prayer for the sake of one of them men’s relatives who was terminally ill.
One of the men near me had a major problem with this, and couldn’t believe that the military would do this, because this person was an atheist and felt he was somehow being oppressed by having been exposed to a group prayer he was not forced to participate in (but was forced to listen to).
This is why I have no sympathy whatsoever for these people. I do not believe they are moderate Christians who are outraged at a group of fanatic Christian extremists. These people are athiests lying to claim faith in order to enhance their credibility, or they are secularized Christians-in-name-only who similarly balk at any public display of faith.
I am not a very religious person, but I do consider myself a Christian. I do not agree that I should allow others to speak for me in prayer, but I do respect the solemn occasion and I bow my head. I think it is highly offensive that these people are trying to purge military traditions by wiping any semblance of Christianity from military assemblies. A large majority of the men in the military are Christians, and I think this is a case of the tyranny of the minority, with a minority of people trying to dictate what the majority can do by claiming to be offended.
In other words, the heckler’s veto.
kaltes on December 15, 2006 at 5:02 PM
It was the only message at night (or generally at all for that matter)that served not a single operational necessity.
Helo ops over my head were operational necessities. Other operational announcements were, obviously, operational.
The Muslims insist that everyone has to bear with their five-times-a-day calls to prayer (the first one at a truly unGodly hour in the AM). Is there something that makes a few Christians feel like they have to compete with this? The thing is, though, that the evening prayer over the 1MC WILL, almost certainly, open the door for the 5-times-a-day call to prayer as soon as there is a single CAIR-loving muslim on a deployed warship.
Why bother with it at all, I fail to see the point of it. Nothing keeps anyone from praying on their own (which is, I would argue, most correct in any case), nothing keeps any groups of people not on watch from praying together somewhere convenient. And those prayers can be as long and brimstone-filled as they would want.
TABoLK on December 15, 2006 at 5:27 PM
If someone is punished or is passed over for promtotion because of regligous belief or nonbelief that sucks for them.
Aitch on December 15, 2006 at 5:28 PM
torrentprime:
I believe that he is in a crusade with certain people in the Air Force Academy, probably tied in some way to the firing of Capt. MeLinda Morton a while back, and the ‘attacks’ on his offspring. This is personal to him, something deep, at least the way Salon presents it.
The Great Purge reference was my way of displaying the knee-jerk reaction of the Command when any directives come down the pipe – if one sailor (airman, et al.) screws up once that gets O-4+’s involved and next thing you know all similar activity is secured for everyone on ship. Some brass is going to listen to this zealot, want some action taken by his underlings to Maintain Good Order (who themselves overreact); that ball of poop gets bigger as it rolls down hill and next thing you know some Chief is giving you the eye because you’ve got out King James Version on the mess decks Sunday morning. Not as obvious as Stalin’s Purge, but the end results still puts a chill on any religious activity, not just the ones that were initially causing the issue.
I’ve only spent 6 years in the service, mostly on a sub, but I never saw anything to the extent what this former JAG is talking about.
blogRot on December 15, 2006 at 5:34 PM
I “turned off” the readership by posting something you/they disagree with? Your skin’s as thin as tissue paper, kaltes.
I get paid to give my opinion. Most of the time we all agree. Sometimes we don’t. Judging by the number of comments, not only was this post fabulously successful, it’s arguably the most successful post this week.
You can keep whining about the occasional religious posts if you want but it’s not going to cow me into not writing about it.
Allahpundit on December 15, 2006 at 5:35 PM
So,
It’s okay for Catholics to dictate what is ideologically right and wrong, but not okay for Protestants?
I’m sorry, just I keep getting this distinction wrong.
Then you disprove your own point. If Catholicism is 2000 years old, and Evangelical Christianity is an off-shoot of Catholicism such as you describe, then Evangelical lineage is indeed 2000 years old.
>>>
Here is an example of the debate:
The Roman Catholic Church today teaches a theology wherein no-one goes to hell, but many go to purgatory where they can and will eventually earn their way into heaven later, is why most Protestants disagree with the RC. This is not what the early Christian church leaders taught. This teaching came along hundreds of years later in church history.
Jesus pretty much spells out that it is only through Him that we go to Heaven. Jesus also articulates with emphasis that Salvation is not something that can be earned, either in this life or in the next. Jesus also clearly articulates that any number of people will and do reject His free gift of salvation from sin and do go to Hell for eternity.
Whether one calls themselves Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, or whatever, it doesn’t change what Jesus said. So, what the Roman Catholic Church teaches now (regardless of lineage) is clearly not in line with what Jesus and the early church leaders taught.
However, from an Evangelical point of view, it’s not about the earthly church. It is about the community of believers that follow Christ.
In this context there are going to be any number of Roman Catholics in Heaven rejoicing that they share eternity with any number of Protestants, and any number of Roman Catholics in Hell wondering along with their Protestant brothers how they ended up there.
Lets take a look at the 3 core Christian Confessions of faith (written by Catholics, btw). Nicean, Apostles, and Athanasian Creeds. These are the core confessional documents of Christianity, and also the core confessions on which the Protestant reformation is based.
So the real question is, if one calls themselves Christian, do they embrace these creeds as valid confessions of their faith? If yes, then you’re probably good to go. If not, then God have mercy on your soul.
Lawrence on December 15, 2006 at 5:36 PM
Who says evangelicalism is even Christianity anymore? It has slid quite a bit from its roots in the Reformation, and since the purpose driven movement, from the Gospel altogether.
PRCalDude on December 15, 2006 at 5:45 PM
…at least not until we convert your heathen ass. :p
(i kind of like these and the BSG posts – good reading beyond the initial post)
blogRot on December 15, 2006 at 5:46 PM
HUH?
I was raised Catholic and graduated from one of the most well known Catholic high schools … and I’ve never once heard this belief. This is why you should not preach that any religion is more right than your own, since it’s a safe bet that none of us really have a clue. There are too many so called “religious experts” who are far more wrong than they are right.
Gregor on December 15, 2006 at 6:16 PM
Um … huh?
With all due respect – get some first-hand knowledge before you spout off. That statement is the grandest, silliest, and just-plain-wrongest strawman I’ve ever seen erected.
Yes, I said erected. Perverts.
And if Hell has been cancelled, I’m gonna party tonight, baby.
Professor Blather on December 15, 2006 at 6:26 PM
True, it seems a lot of these new churches popping up are abandoning the gospel, but there are still some good churches left.
jman on December 15, 2006 at 6:32 PM
Yeah, but on some subjects it doesn’t feel like you are merely giving (advocating strongly) your opinion but instead shoving it down our throats.
EF on December 15, 2006 at 6:34 PM
Allah,
Setting aside some of the stranger comments in these threads: He’s wrong on the regs and on the law and you’re wrong for citing to him favorably. That’s it.
I say this as a committed non-evangelical lapsed-Catholic.
armylawyer on December 15, 2006 at 6:36 PM
AP gets paid for this?
No wonder Ace is so peeved. ;)
TABoLK on December 15, 2006 at 6:41 PM
If Billy Sunday were alive and serving in today’s military, I think AP would go into spasms . Of course, someone would accuse AP of going Pentecostal.
.
GT on December 15, 2006 at 6:51 PM
Moooooooooooooooooooooo.
sandberg on December 15, 2006 at 6:52 PM
I’ve written two posts about this. Two. You feel it’s being “shoved down your throat” because it touches on a religious subject. That’s the one and only reason.
How many posts have I written about Iraq or Muslims or jihad or media bias? Not once that I can recall has anyone accused me of shoving it down your throat even though sometimes I feel that’s what I’m doing by covering it so excessively.
Allahpundit on December 15, 2006 at 6:57 PM
I’d like to know what AP’s definition of what a Christian is and what an Evangelical Christian is.
.
GT on December 15, 2006 at 6:59 PM
Yes, I think people will hold your opinion in less esteem when you put emphasis on the issues on which they disagree. It isn’t about my skin at all. I was personally disappointed that you would endorse such a vociferous attack against Christians. There is a reason this article was on a left-wing site like Salon. What’s next, endorsing articles from media matters and *gasp* Olbermann?
…and as far as thin skin, I think that assertion is a bit of projection on your part, AP.
I wouldn’t judge based on comments. I’m pretty sure Rosie O’Donnell’s ching chong ching moment generated by far the most ‘comments’ of anything that happened on the View for quite some time, yet she didn’t seem to be viewing it as “fabulously successful”. There is a big difference between fame and infamy.
Far be it from me to oppress your 1st Amendment rights Mr. Allahpundit, I am a mere commenter whereas you are an author on a major web site. I hardly think that I am in any way capable of chilling your speech.
You can continue to preach your views regarding Christianity and I can continue to criticize those posts even while I praise many of your others, that is, unless you ban me. Unlike me, you do actually have the power to shut down my input.
Now, if you don’t mind, the Dixie Chicks want their 1st amendment cross back. hahah. ;)
kaltes on December 15, 2006 at 7:01 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »