The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

The religious views of all soldiers in the Armed Forces are equally valid and their personal matter. They are not and must not be a question of (unofficial but de facto policy). Army chaplains have a function. They are to counsel soldiers irrespective of their faiths (as in: a Lutheran or Jewish chaplain counselling a Catholic soldier), and help them over their fears and problems, moral and practical. They are outside the chain of command, so talking to them has no disciplinary consequences if soldiers have problems with superiors. They haven't been given the armed forces as a hunting ground to convert those who are 'unchurched'.

It only gives testimony to the disorientation of the evangelical mind that they ignore all thus because apparently witnessing to, and catching people for Jesus so that they will be saved on Rapture day, is the greatest and most wonderful favour they think can do to another person. Maybe so, and they are entitled to their view. But they are not to put that view into action when they're on duty. While they may subjectively serve God, they objectively serve the US armed forces, and have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution.

Those Evangelicals in the armed forces who think they are there to hunt people for Jesus appear have a fundamental(ist/ist's) problem with Article VI, section 3 of the United States Constitution:

That one is not all that hard to grasp, and neither is the thinking behind it. America was conceived as a religiously diverse country, in response to religious oppression, and indeed, in response to Great Britain having a state religion.

Now think to what religious pressure, especially when applied by from superiors, and as peer pressure, amounts to in the US armed forces. Command authority and the draconian punishment for disobedience on the one hand and proselytising on the other don't go well with each other. A superior orders a subordinate soldier to go to prayer hour and the subordinate refuses? That's an illegal order, yes, but it is also de-facto disobedience from the side of the subordinate, and it strains the relationship of a subordinate soldier to his superior. Ever tried to stand up to a drill sergeant? Let's say this, most of the kids in the Army are young and they will conform, because that's what kids do, and because in an army that's a sensible, necessary thing to do. Subordinates will likely not be brave enough stand up to their superior in such a case. They risk ruining their military careers when they object to and defy such an order. Privates tell NCOs and officers to get out of their face at their own peril. Allowing proselytising means consciously placing soldiers in that dilemma. That is as unfair as it is undesirable. Proselytising sows the seeds of division, of polarization in the armed forces.

The US armed forces reflect, have to reflect, the entire nation, and it's religious diversity. The religious diversity in the ranks has changed somewhat since the all volunteer army predominantly attracted red staters, but the principle is valid still. The US armed forces are not, and are not supposed to be, a US Christian Armed Forces. Proselytising, encouraged or ordered, by chaplains, or worse, by officers or other superiors, sows unrest among those soldiers adhering to other faiths (or no faiths), and/or who are unwilling to be witnessed to (i.e. insulted about their 'inferior' faiths, or lack thereof), and, in that endangers discipline in the force. It is telling enough that a quarter of the people coming to Weinstein's foundation are Catholics who have been harassed for not being Christian enough, as if the only true way of belief is the Evangelical way.

There is no problem with proselytising per se, as long as it is kept private. One private citizen can tell another private citizen who thinks he has to witness to him to get out of his face, which the other then has to accept. Evangelicals ought to be Evangelicals at home, and a good soldier on duty. But considering their urge to spread their religion into the public sphere, my view on religion doesn't conform with their self-image and world-view and is unlikely to be accepted. You know, as in: Never mind Article VI, section 3, America has always been a Christian country. Appeals to the evident generally suggest a weak argument, and it isn't any different here. Not that weakness in argument in any way diminishes fervour, after all this is about nothing less but the truth of Biblical prophecy.

 

No, but if one of the central premises of your religion is to "spread the word", it does seem logical to expect an official representative (or any representative) of your religion to encourage you to do so. I would also expect Christian chaplains to encourage Jews to follow the tennets of their faith, and Muslims, and Buddhists, and Atheists .

That entirely depends on how they put said views into actions. If, when talking with another soldier, and when religion comes up, they witness to the soldier, I don't think they're at all out of line. If they run up to random soldiers, or anyone assigned to them on duty, and spout the whole "Convert or burn in Hell" line for hours on end, then they're out of line.

I will agree that this is wrong. Exerting pressure of any kind is wrong, especially if you're in a position of power over the subject of that pressure. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't soldiers actually legally obligated to disobey an illegal order?

I completely agree with you here, I think. Just one question, assuming that proselytising is done is a respectable fashion (i.e. if the other person doesn't want to hear it, stop talking), do you have any problem with soldiers proselytising on duty, provided that it doesn't interfere with any duties or mission objectives in any way?

 

This is a difference of truth in prinicple over practice. Yes, in priciple it is legal for any soldier to disobey an illegal order. However, in practice it is not so easy. It may be much easier for a soldier to go against his will if it means being given a harder time by his drill sergeant if he refuses.

 

I worked as a missionary for 2 years, so I feel I have something valuable to add to the proselyting discussion.

Some may find it odd that I agree with pretty well everything Ragusa says. It isn't really odd. You drive people away from your beliefs when you do not respect their right to decline to listen to your message. In my faith this is called "agency", and it means that everyone on Earth has the God-Given right to choose their actions and beliefs. If someone tells a missionary that they are not interested, perhaps a tiny bit of persistance is acceptable, but really the bottom line should be "thank you for your time, I hope you have a great day. I hope in the future you have another opportunity to hear our message" and then you go on your merry way.

Forcing or tricking people into listening to your message, especially using coercive tactics, is despicable and counterproductive. IMHO, conversion comes when people feel loved and respected. If they don't feel that, a true conversion of the heart will never happen.

This stuff in the military, if it is true, needs to be reigned in. To share ones beliefs is admirable. To force them on people who have little to no choice is reprehensible.

 

LKD,
you're welcome and I don't find your agreement odd. Thought through, this is a pretty uncontroversial issue.

From my limited experience, there are times during service, maybe during weapon cleaning, after duty, but maybe also when doing dull stuff like guard duty and waiting for the turn to make the next round, in which in a private conversation of religion may come up. In that context it does do no harm to witness, IMO, even though more likely topics would iirc be blistered feet, sleep, the food, chicks, beer, booze, music, computer games, and, uh, probably chicks and booze again, and what a mean bastard the platoon sergeant is. That is not what's at issue here.

Point is the behaviour at the Air Force Academy was of the "Convert or burn in Hell" kind. What creates unit cohesion is comradeship. Telling comrades that they will burn in hell and will not be saved if they don't convert, now, puts a strain on comradeship. It's hard to trust people with your life when they have called you a godless worshipper of the Great Whore, or, if you're a Jew, a Jesus killer. Will they send you out to all the dangerous assignments?

It is completely inappropriate when the battalion commander opens a meeting by witnessing to his subordinates and is basically ordering an introductory prayer. His subordinates want to get promoted. That strongly depends on them impressing their superiors. A superior officer always exercises power when he is on duty, and even when he is off duty. Superiors should never witness to subordinates because there always are the implicit consequences of higher rank. The problem is the in relation of power.

For the same reasoning, that is, because the relation of power between him and a trainee, a drill sergeant legally cannot have consensual sex with a trainee soldier. He will commit sexual misconduct even when the woman (ideally ) consents.

In both cases it is about abuse of rank and abuse of power.