Evangelicals Pushing In The Pentagon?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Military, Religion(Note: I’m “pushing” this post back to the top because of some confusion about whether or not these military people violated any rules. See below the original for new info.)
It’s my firm belief that the evangelical movement will beging to slow and eventually come to a pretty distinct stoppage in the next 20 years. That’s right, an end to the religious right and the start of a more progressive religious movement focused less on politics and more on the poor.
Still, news like this makes me think it may be even longer…
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A watchdog group that promotes religious freedom in the U.S. military accused senior officers on Monday using their rank and influence to coerce soldiers and airmen into adopting evangelical Christianity.Such proselytizing, according to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, has created a core of “radical” Christians within the U.S. armed forces and Pentagon who punish those who do not accept evangelical beliefs by stalling their careers.
“It’s egregious beyond the pale,” said Mikey Weinstein, president and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. “We apparently have a radicalized, evangelical Christian Pentagon within the rest of the Pentagon.”
It’s no secret that the military attracts many more of the religiously devout than most professions, but it’s a sad state of affairs when the religiously devout begin to draw lines in the sand when it comes to spiritual purity.
Still more…
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said the officers on the video violated military rules by wearing their uniforms while discussing their religious beliefs, giving the appearance of official participation in a religious organization. [...]“It associates the power of office with sectarian ideology,” said MeLinda Morton, a Lutheran reverend and former Air Force chaplain who said her military career was hurt because she did not adopt evangelical views.
And make no mistake, at the end of the day this is all about marketing. They’re basically saying that “Our brand of soul cleasning is better than your brand of soul cleansing,” even though both brands have the exact same ingredients. The only thing different is the packaging, and the evangelical movment are masters of the marketing. But that’s all it is. It’s no better than any other form of Christianity and I hope people start waking up to this fact sooner rather than later.
UPDATE:
One person has been asking what laws these people have broken.
Well, except for the explicit statement in the second blockquote above, there’s this from a former JAG who also served as counsel for three and a half years in Ronald Reagan’s West Wing:
It is absolutely violative of a mountain of Department of Defense internal regulations, guidelines, core values, instructions, making it very clear that members of the military can not endorse any one particular political position, partisan religious view, they can’t hold up a tube of toothpaste like Colgate and push it. Irrespective of that, it’s also blatantly violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and at least as important it’s violative of Clause 3, Article 6 of the Constitution — you don’t even have to get into the Bill of Rights — which states that we will never have a religion test for any position in the federal government, which was brilliantly prescient of our Founding Fathers.
So, does that put that issue to rest? I hope so.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 13th, 2006 and is filed under Military, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Justin,
I’m not against your article except that you tend to fold the entire evangelical movement into one mold when there are many movements. A number are belong to the religious right, but there are also those who are concerned about issues like Darfur and global warming. Not all of them are worried about gay marriage or abortion.
I say this because I grew up as an evangelical. I know that evangelicals come in all shapes and forms and contrary to what you believe they aren’t going away. They have been around long before the religious right came to power and will be around long after Jerry Fawell and his ilk have been forgotten.
Sorry for being so passionate, but I do take some offense since this is part of my religious heritage and it is my parents are still fervent evangelicals who are also solid Democrats. There are many evangelicals as there are people and they shouldn’t be lumped into one sterotype.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
I completely disagree with your statement that both movements contain the exact same ingredients.
One movement is full of hubris, hatred, and bigotry, the other actually follows not only carefully exerpted passages from the bible, but the true meaning and purpose behind much of it, love, caring, and equality for (all of) one’s fellow humankind.
Granted, as Dennis says, there are degrees of variation among evangelicals, but the ones who are dominating the discourse are of the mean-spirited, evil variety. The more reasonable types, if they want anyone to believe they exist, need to shut the radicals up, or at least drown out their hateful rhetoric with reasonable speech (or lock them up in a padded room, in some cases). Unfortunately, the press finds reasonableness far less mediaworthy, so it rarely makes the evening news.
I view the difference between radical and reasonable evangelicals to be very similar to the difference between radical and reasonable Moslems – I’m sure both varieties exist, but you never hear much about the latter group in either religion.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Almost a trifecta for you Justin: The condemnation of Evangelicals and the military in one post! If you could have thrown in “Corporate America” I’m sure you could have gotten a big prize from someone of no consequence.
As I’ve written several times before, my brother is a Colonel in the Air Force and a very conservative, traditional Roman Catholic. Since the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (such a very serious & important name –) doesn’t provide much of anything in terms of evidence — I was wondering if this only applied to Evangelical Protestants or, if Evangelical Catholics were also mixed up in this egregiousness.
Is the accusation that this is a systemic, pervasive, top-down coordinated issue, reflecting a culture of religious litmus tests necessary for professional advancement or a single insensitive episode?
Also, I would be interested in knowing exactly what AFI these officers are (not) accused of violating.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
1) Christianity is always the same, but people interpret it to fit their own means, both political and personal. That was my point, and the fact that these military people are showing preference for one “brand” of it is just pathetic, boorish and ignorant. It’s all the same God!
2) Evangelicals are not all the same, but moderate evagelicals have a serious PR problem, no? I know you’re trying to fix this from within Dennis, and I applaud that, but the overwhelming reality is that evangelicals are lead by the politically hungry…so until you all turn that around…
3) I stand by everything I’ve said. Not only that, but I’ll also say that the evangelical movement up to this point has not only contributed to the divisiveness in this country, they have lead the way. Change this movement, and you change the world.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Are you writing material for John Kerry?
Yes, a serious PR problem with aesthist, marxist, abortionist, unitarian universalist agnostics, and Hugo Chavez — I’m not terribly worried about it.
What? Please finish thought.
Apparently, you are also willing to stand by every unsubstantiated allegation made by any organziation. Have heard the “Military Association of For the Study of Animal Abuse” have a video of a 2nd Lt. in the Air Force kicking his dog? Obviously this reflects a pushing of animal-haters within the Pentagon.
You’re hatred for religion and religious people are palpable. And when mixed with the military, an insitution that I believe you have little respect for, it becomes an overwhelming combination. You can’t even help the injection of vitriol because I believe it has a cathartic, justifying effect on you, Justin. Any opportunity, regardless of its merits, for an attack on Christians you take…thrown in the military and it’s double mint fun.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
I’m still waiting for SOMEONE to tell me what law/regulation these officers broke. The sound of silence is deafening.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
How about the law of common sense. Show me one bit of evidence that Jesus lived (outside the bible) then we can talk about how your and my military should be spending it’s time engaging in magical thinking.
I’m sure Justin tolerates religion way more than I do, and even I don’t hate religion.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
DosPeros, can I suggest that it is the same law/regulation being applied as that used by the Ayatollahs in Iran, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. It might not exist on paper, but it is sure there in people’s heads and in their actions.
You should be concerned that an organisation such as MRFF even exists. If, as you seem to believe, there is no religious pressure within the Armed Forces, then it would be most unlikely that there would be an “opposition” movement.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Justin, I have to agree with Dos here. There have been substantiated examples of misconduct by evangelicals in the military, such as the Air Force Academy scandal. But there’s not much here to justify the MRFF’s heated rhetoric in this case.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Do you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about?
December 12th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
You are right Rob. I don’t actually think that Justin or many people for that matter have a hatred for religion. In fact, I tend to love things that make me feel superior. It is our individual boogey-man’s that help form our identity. Our intellects are framed as much by what we disbelieve as that which we do believe. And fighting that enemy is what gives meaning to our lives. Evangelical Christians obviously fill this role for our fine editor.
As for disbelief in Jesus Christ our Lord and Raisen Savior, Rob: When your nuts are roosting in hell and your being sodomized by rampaging gangs of demons — I want you to look back on your comment and think of what DosPeros told you.
Probligo, my wine-drenched kiwi, you’ve been partying with the Maori
December 12th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
a little too…much.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
That must be that all loving God I keep hearing about.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Justin your statement that evangelicals lead the way promoting divisiveness in this country is just plain wrong.
Christians are just defending the Constitution’s protection of freedom OF religion (not freedom FROM religion), which is their right.
They aren’t the ones suing to remove the word “God” from the pledge or our money, or nativity scenes and crosses from public display, or removal of any and all references to our Christian heritage on public property because some poor individual is upset by it. Those actions by secular progressives are leading the way in promoting divisiveness.
Evangelicals did not start this fight to remove God and Christianity from all things American. Are they expected to roll over and play dead?
December 12th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Lewis: So as long as majority Christians are able to use the levers of government to support their religion, that’s fine; but the minute someone complains, they’re divisive?
Why do so many people have such a problem with the concept of “as much religious expression as you want on your own property and own dime; just don’t use government money or government property?” Government should not support one religion over another, nor should it support belief over nonbelief. It should be for ALL citizens, concentrating on the here and now and leaving the hereafter to private organizations.
Especially because so many of the things we’re fighting about didn’t even exist until scant decades ago. God in the Pledge? 1954, as a reaction to Communism. “In God we trust” on the money? First done in 1864 for some coins, though unevenly. Disappeared from the nickel in 1883 and didn’t show up again until 1938. Paper money? 1957.
Sure seems like the religious folks are the ones who fired the first shot in both cases.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Sean, you can nitpick those dates but the fact remains that American history is full of the obvious influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs and traditions. It’s only been in the very recent past that it seems some have become threatened and/or ashamed of it. Sure, it’s not all wonderful, but much of it has been positive and has contributed greatly to the success of our country.
And for all that obvious unashamed display of Christianity by our government in our nations’s past, please show me when the United States has ever not had freedom OF religion.
The problem today is that some people believe that government sponsorship of the Christian religion and the death of freedom OF (not FROM) religion will occur if “God” is even mentioned in any reference to our government. Any hint of religion must be completely cleansed. American history shows us that is simply not true.
Christianity was fundamental in American history. It’s our roots and our heritage and a major piece of what still passes for “cultural traditions”. It’s our history – it was good for our country – celebrate it – don’t deny it. That’s what evangelicals are standing up to defend.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Lewis: One example was blue laws. Forcing every business to shut down on Sunday because the Christians have to shut down on Sundays. They’ve mostly disappeared, though when I lived in New Jersey in the mid-90s Bergen County still had ‘em. Heaven forfend you ran low on gas on a Sunday while passing through.
But you also misstate the issue. It’s not freedom FROM religion; religion will always flourish in the private sector; no one credible trying to ban it. They’re simply trying to keep the government — OUR government — from demonstrating a preference for one belief or another. “Neutral” does not mean “against.” It simply means that the levers of power should not be used to promote a given religion. Do you disagree?
I’m not on the front lines trying to get God removed from government; I have a life, and I’m not easily offended. But intellectually, I sympathize with those that do. What I do not support is going too far. Religion should not be promoted, but neither should it be suppressed. It is a part of our culture, and its role can be recognized, just as the roles of other groups are recognized.
Reasonable people can disagree over what constitutes a legitimate, recognizable role. I happen to think posting a 12-ton statue of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse crosses the line by a fair margin, not least because the actual legal principles summed up in the Commandments — once you get past the first few, which are all about how to worship God — are common to most cultures and beliefs: don’t murder, don’t steal, obey authority, don’t be a butthead. It’s not like the Commandments were this great legal revelation that nobody else had ever thought of. But I don’t flip out when they’re cited as part of our legal and cultural history.
Such reasonable disagreements, though, are what we should be having, not shrill lawsuits on the one hand and the slightly pathetic sight of a strong majority crying “persecution!” on the other. That’s what you get, though, when both sides take absolutist positions and think the other side is extremist.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:55 am
The allegations are clearly stated in the post above…but to reiterate…
As far as religion in our publicly funded organizations, I’m against it. And it’s because it leads to exactly the type of thing you’re seeing with this military story…discrimination begins to happen.
This is why Thomas Jeffersion, although he did believe in God, said there is a clear wall between church and state. Even Jesus purports this same notion when he said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Also, the cases that have been brought before the courts seek to keep private religion out of the public sector and ceremony. If that’s the source of this divisiveness…well, consider me unswayed by that argument.
Listen, the leaders of wide expanses of the evangelical movement are seeking to subvert our democracy, turn America into a “Christian” nation and have no absolutely no problem stating that outright. Any person who’s been paying attention to the more radical, public elements of this movement knows this already.
And Dos, as a Christmas gift to the site, please quit being so effusive with the insults. It’s counter to everything this site is about, and although I know that’s exactly why you do it in the first place, I really wish you’d cut it out. It’s not funny, it’s just tiring.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
No, sorry, that doesn’t even remotely “put the issue at rest.” I worked for the USAF JAG Corp at Offutt AFBase and this officer has **clearly** lost his military love of citing regulations, chapter and verse. What AFI did these officers break? He refers to a “mountain” of regulation, but he DOES NOT CITE ONE, not ONE. Most JAG officers with a little bit of effort could recite regulations regarding having the wrong sock on the wrong foot.
As for his constitutional “take” — good for him – he should write it on the back of a Denny’s napkin and submit to SCOTUS as an amicus brief for the next 1st Amendment case.
Vague platitudes just don’t cut it and they sure don’t “put the issue to rest.” If in fact he was correct, then we’d need to go ahead and fire all chaplians in the Armed Services. He’s not, he clearly has an agenda and that’s fine – he should represent the aggreived and sue. He won’t though, because he’ll lose. You don’t lose your 1st Amendment rights because you don a military uniform – ridiculous.
As for your admonition on my “insults”, since you invoked Christ and the word “effusive”, I humbly ask your pardon.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Thanks for the fake Congresswoman spam….
December 13th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Dos: As I thought I commented earlier, there are regulations against conduct in uniform that might be construed as lending official sanction to certain activities. It’s usually commercial activities, like the 101st Airborne soldiers who starred on a porn site a while back. But it wouldn’t surprise me to find that there are similar bars on proselytizing, or political campaigning, or the , especially for officers. Which is one reason the Pentagon is investigating the video.
For instance, here’s a Fox story that states “Service regulations in general prohibit active-duty officers from lobbying for political causes while on duty or wearing their uniforms. The issue of religion in the military is trickier, with regulations seeking to both uphold religious freedom and protect members from proselytizing.”
Nonetheless, I think that doesn’t quite rise to the level of discrimination or coercion.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
I deleted the spam comment.
December 13th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Wow! Reading this merry-go-round of comments about religious/legal/military/constitutional doctrine made me a little dizzy. So please forgive me if the following point wasn’t mentioned:
Belief in an afterlife is an invaluable tool in military/guerilla conflicts … hence, on the one hand, suicide bombers buying a ticket to see 72 virgins, and on the other, brave soldiers “fighting for God and country.�
Unfortunately this major incentive for people to put their lives on the line in battle also explains why the world’s leaders think they can take war so lightly.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
This my Christmas gift to Justin: If officers where using Evangelical “conversion” to a particular religious creeds, faith, spiritual inclinations as some type of requirement for promotion within the military, then they should be called out, be dishonorably discharged and sued. I do not believe in any shape or fashion that this is a systemic, pervasive problem within the military, nor I believe that the vast number of Evangelicals within the miliary are a threat. To think so is fantastically underestimating the professionalism and the intelligence of the officer corp of the US armed forces, particularly during a time of war in which their own lives are saved by a merit-based system. Condemnation of this single situation may be warranted, I don’t know because I haven’t seen enough evidence. If in fact, a specific regulation or law was broken (and I’m not talking about individuals interpretation of the Establishment Clause) then the officers suffer some consequences. To automatically come to the side of the alleged agrieved would be questionable, but to come out of the gate with a sweeping, umbrella-conspiracy theory and to attribute such evil intentions and intentions to people with no other connection than a common belief, reflects an animus not based on facts, but on dislike, even hatred. I find it insulting, effusively so, particularly during a season in which we celebrate Christ. Merry Christmas.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
[sigh]
To Christians of all stripes:
If you think believing in a 2000 year old flying magic carpenter (who’s first miracle was to get already tipsy people totally drunk at a party!) born of a virgin is logical, what’s the point in discussing anything with you? If you think it’s quaint, and that the truth is in the values, not the story of jesus itself, that’s at least a respectable position.
Did you all assume your parents couldn’t be wrong? Have a freak rush of seratonin at the wrong time, associating it with Jesus’ love? Never bother to question the absurdity of the story you were told since birth? Did your parents have to tell you santa wasn’t real? or did you figure that out on your own? How long did it take you to realize that a fat 1000-year old man with flying reindeer wasn’t real?
Does it matter that Constantinople merged Christianity with paganism to make it more palatable for the pagans to adopt? Shouldn’t we ditch the pagan holidays (Like christmas) tacked on to christianity, start honoring the true sabath (saturday – it was changed to sunday because pagans were used to worshiping the sun on sunday)? Or are those details unimportant?
I’d love to get answers to these….
December 14th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
We can only change the Sabbath back to Saturday if we keep Sunday and just get Friday added; three day weekends!