Military Religious Freedom: The Torah in Iraq
The Air Force news published articles and pictures (see below the fold) of a Torah dedication ceremony in Balad, Iraq, on March 23rd, as well as the accompanying adult Bar Mitzvah of an enlisted Airmen.
Contrary to some assertions, such public displays of faith do not demonstrate an institutional favoritism of a religion (in this case, Judaism) by the military or by the government. Such expressions–even in a region of the world that has elements hostile to both Judaism and America–are not only permitted but also encouraged, just as the free exercise of other faiths is also supported.
Such displays are also wholly permissible in uniform, as these Airmen were. The Airmen wore yarmulkes in place of their military covers, which is explicitly permitted by DoDD 1300.17 when military headgear is not required (other similar guidance can be found here). Many of the Airmen involved in the uniformed religious celebration were also armed, but such a display did not militarize the spiritual event.
Also, the presence of mixed ranks is evidence of neither coercion nor improper command influence. The Air Force picture includes men and women, both senior officers and junior enlisted. The resulting relationships among the varied ranks who share and celebrate a common faith are neither coercive nor illegal.
The ability of these Airmen to publicly celebrate their faith is evidence of the lengths to which the military goes to accomodate religious faith, even while its troops are in a combat zone in a region sometimes hostile to America and its varied faiths. It also demonstrates the freedom of religion American troops continue to enjoy even while in the military–even when they are uniformed and armed officers and enlisted.
However, Michael Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, has previously described public expressions of faith by military personnel in theatre, like this Torah dedication, as
a noxious national security threat that would embolden a fundamentalist Islamic opponent and maim and kill our own soldiers
and has equated photos of religious soldiers with their weapons with those of Islamic extremist suicide bombers. He has called American military members of faith a “Taliban” that must be stopped, and has claimed that public displays of faith in the military embolden our adversaries and serve as “recruiting tools” for al Qaeda.
Notably, however, Weinstein has restricted his criticism to only those of the Christian faith.
Photo credit: Department of Defense
In the interest of making sure everyone knows that you are trying to be honest and forthcoming, I would think that it would be in your best interest to either have a link to the quoted text by Michael Weinstein, or at least put more of it in so that we may see it in context. If you would have done either of these, it should be fairly obvious that you have totally missed the point of the quote. Mr. Weinstein was specifically referring to American Troops proselytizing Muslims during the first Gulf War. To equate Mr. Weinstein’s position on proselytizing, with soldiers simply performing a religious ceremony seems like a straw man. Though I could be wrong, I don’t think that Mr. Weinstein is against allowing military members to hold uncoerced religious ceremonies. It is only when members of a certain faith attempt to make those ceremonies mandatory, or in the case of the quoted text, when people of a certain faith attempt to push their faith on others. These actions are undoubtedly counterproductive in an environment where the goal is religious freedom.
Mr. Weinstein was specifically referring to American Troops proselytizing Muslims during the first Gulf War.
You are mistaken. The context of the quote were Gen Norman Schwarzkopf’s actions not in the US military’s interaction with Muslims, but in the public expression of religious acts themselves; for example, the MRFF agreed with the prohibition on the filming of American military religious services while in Saudi Arabia, which had nothing to do with proselytizing Muslims. The full quote follows, and you can see no reference to Muslims, only to other servicemembers.
To equate Mr. Weinstein’s position on proselytizing, with soldiers simply performing a religious ceremony seems like a straw man.
Perhaps, until you realize Mr. Weinstein’s position has been consistent. The MRFF recently said the same thing about the “religious ceremony” filmed in Afghanistan, which was shown on al Jazeera and called “irresponsible journalism” by the US military because it misrepresented two religious services being held:
Weinstein’s full quote:
“…the MRFF agreed with the prohibition on the filming of American military religious services while in Saudi Arabia, which had nothing to do with proselytizing Muslims.”
Though the prohibition on filming might not have dealt specifically with proselytization, it should still be fairly obvious that Gen. Schwarzkopf felt that the prohibition was beneficial in order to maintain good relations with locals. Although you may already know, here are some of the other things that Gen. Schwarzkopf thought would be beneficial and therefore had implemented during Operation Desert Storm: Soldiers were to keep religious symbols, such as necklaces, under their uniforms, they were asked not to discuss their religious beliefs with Saudis, they were asked not to take bibles outside of the American bases, and troops were even told to refer to religious services as “fellowship meetings” and to chaplains as “morale officers”. It isn’t like the U.S. just did these things on a whim, we were asked by the Saudis because they knew that some of these actions, if seen in public, would offend the religious fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia. Hence, when Mr. Weinstein said “General Schwarzkopf was aptly able to maintain the religious support needed by our troops while at the same time preventing a noxious national security threat that would embolden a fundamentalist Islamic opponent and maim and kill our own soldiers.” it should have been fairly obvious that he was referring to those actions that Gen. Schwarzkopf took in order to prevent the locals from forming a negative view of U.S. Soldiers who might try to push their religion on them. He is even acknowledging the fact that the support of troops’ religious practices is important.
I will admit, maybe proselytizing was too specific of a word when I said “Mr. Weinstein was specifically referring to American Troops proselytizing Muslims during the first Gulf War”, even though proselytizing was definitely one of the problems that Gen. Schwarzkopf was concerned about and therefore also one of the things that Mr. Weinstein commended him for prohibiting. But unless you think that Gen. Schwarzkopf was being too restrictive or asking too much of his soldiers when he requested these things (which you very well may think this, I don’t know), then I think that you are being unfair in your judgment of Mr. Weinstein. Otherwise, you should be ridiculing Gen. Schwarzkopf as well for enforcing some of the very policies that Mr. Weinstein is commending.
Furthermore, if you can show me an instance where Mr. Weinstein has advocated limiting soldiers’ abilities to practice their faith where there is no reason to do so, and more specifically no reason that Gen. Schwarzkopf would have agreed with, then I may be willing to agree with you that Mr. Weinstein has overreached in his endeavors. But when we look at the video taken in Afghanistan, we can clearly see that this is the exact behavior that Gen. Schwarzkopf intended to prohibit. Even if we didn’t have the example set by Gen. Schwarzkopf, we could still determine that these bibles were not a good idea. And it appears that the command believed this to be true also, seeing as how the bibles were confiscated.
Again, I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that Mr. Weinstein would have any objection to soldiers performing a Torah dedication ceremony, assuming that those in attendance were not coerced into being there and that it was done on a U.S. base. It seemed to me that your article attempted to imply that Mr. Weinstein would have a problem with such a ceremony, and because of that I believe that you were being unfair. As far as I can tell, Mr. Weinstein, along with members of the military including myself, only make a fuss about religion when it is pushed onto those who do not wish it to be pushed on them. I have no problem with soldiers practicing their religion. In fact, in basic training I even volunteered to accompany a battle buddy to Temple simply because I found it fascinating and we happened to be good friends. (This is usually the part where someone makes a joke about the german and the jewish soldiers being best friends!)
I would stand up against anyone who tried to take your freedom to practice your religion away, but only up to the point where it doesn’t endanger the mission or until it infringes on someone else’s rights. I read your blog occasionally specifically because I want to make sure that I am not missing something. I appreciate your blog for the fact that it keeps me from becoming one-sided. But so far I haven’t seen any cases where I felt that someone’s religious rights were being unjustly limited. So my question for you is, do you think that American Soldiers should be able to share their religion with the locals in a combat zone, as the soldiers in the Afghanistan video seemed likely to do? Also, do you think that American Soldiers should be able to proselytize to those who do not wish to be proselytized to, such as myself?
Take care!
So is your contention that the “noxious national security threat” was the Saudi “negative view”?
It is true that Pentagon’s prohibition on filming religious services (which was a prohibition against the press, not the military) during Desert Storm would have prevented the creation of this al Jazeera piece. However, such a rule does not now exist, and no one is saying that it shouldn’t have been filmed; they’re complaining that the religious services occurred. Even al Jazeera has admitted that nothing in the Chaplain’s sermon addressed any action against or toward Afghan locals, yet the content of the sermon is still being used as “evidence” of something illegal and unConstitutional–even though its not. Schwarzkopf never advocated controlling the content of sermons. Whether the Chaplain was leading a Jewish, Islamic, Wiccan, or Christian service, he is explicitly permitted to espouse the sectarian views of that belief system within the context of a religious service.
Actually, my implication was that Weinstein would have a problem with the public expression of a Christian faith. Weinstein has implied that public associations of Christianity with the US military may inflame tensions in the Arab world because of perceptions of a “crusade.” I was pointing out the irony that other religions also have public expressions, even though they may also be negatively viewed in the the Arab world–and yet Weinstein doesn’t complain about them.
Ah, but Weinstein has asserted that the mere presence of a senior officer, as in the picture above, is coercive and demonstrates “favoritism.”
I appreciate the sentiment, but who defines “endangering the mission?” Couldn’t a picture of armed, Jewish American soldiers celebrating their faith “endanger” troops in areas hostile to the Jewish faith? What if the Chaplain’s sermon had taken place in Georgia instead of Afghanistan?
Your final questions are valid. With your consent, I’ll email you to continue that conversation.