Military Religion Question of the Day: Brooks
Like last week’s question and answer, this military religious question also comes from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
The MRFF frequently trumpets a “[photo] of a military regulation being violated by a service member or at a military event” in its “Captured on Camera.” The extent of the MRFF’s most recent accusation was this:
a photo of an Army officer giving a briefing while standing in front of a Christian flag.
Maj. Gen. Vince Brooks is shown giving a briefing with a Christian flag in the background (photo below the fold):
The photo was taken by Killeen Daily Herald photographer Steven Doll for a story on Fort Hood’s “spiritual fitness center.”
So, did Major General Brooks violate a military regulation when he spoke near a flag with Christian cross? If so, which one?
Stay tuned for an update.
I’m not sure if it breaks a regulation or not but it doesn’t seem like a good thing for our armed forces to me.
What if he was a Satanist (circa Anton LaVey 1960s) and was standing under an inverted pentagram with the Goat of Mendes? And, what if you knew that he was on video in uniform talking about how Satan emboldened his spirit as a military officer as part of a Satanic Embassy Video series sent out to people? Would you care? What if you knew he used his position to make Satanism look cool and useful for promotion and used his rank and influence to encourage its growth in the ranks? Would that concern you?
And what if Al Qaida used the photo of him under the pentagram as evidence that America was truly the great Satan? If the photo emboldened our enemies would you still defend the right of our uniformed military officers to be openly Satanic? Or do you only support them being openly Christian?
So… you’d suggest that the military censor photos by private citizens? Or should the military govern camera angles?
What does his religion have to do with it? That had nothing to do with the article or the photo.
Our adversaries object to many factual facets of American culture–nevermind those that are overstated or fictional. Should we alter our culture as a result?
This incident has nothing to do with Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter. To assert that it does is one of the fundamental flaws of the accusation.
I don’t know the details behind the photo but I would assume he has some say in the location of his speech and was aware of his surroundings. I also assume he could change details of his location as a GO and remove symbols that might happen to be there. I assume that as a GO he is aware of the importance of symbols, words, and actions while in uniform. If my assumptions are incorrect please let me know.
What I do know is that this GO has spoken as a Christian while in uniform at the Pentagon and an IG investigation found fault with that behavior. So as a GO with a history of representing himself as a Christian while in uniform it seems to me that him being a Christian is part of the issue here. He didn’t just stumble onto a stage with a Christian flag on it completely unaware of that minor detail I’m betting.
So if you’ll answer my question since it’s clearly related to the discussion….would you think it ok if he represented himself as a Satanist in uniform? Would you mind if he was on video stating that he was part of a Satanic study group in the Pentagon that sought to bring the “aroma” of Satan to the leadership ranks? Would that bother you or would you defend his actions as protected by religious liberty? I’m trying to understand your position more clearly.
If (for whatever reason) the picture showed him by an inverted pentagram with the goat of mendes in it would that trouble you? Why or why not?
Thanks in advance for answering my questions.
So your basic contention is that it should not be permissible for a military member to be photographed near religious symbology, despite the fact that you don’t know whether or not it violates regulations?
That is not an accurate statement. The “fault” that the IG found had nothing to do with religious behavior, and they explicitly stated such. You can read the report here. Also, an IG investigation sets neither policy nor precedent, which makes it irrelevant as a source document for non-situation specific incidents.
You mean something similar to this? No one has complained about mixing military uniforms and other symbols in the same picture, that I know of. Someone has complained about the one referred to in this post.
Again, religion is irrelevant. No one is representing themselves as anything here. This incident had nothing to do with religion. I’m not the one getting hung up on associations between military uniforms and religious symbology.
I have already answered your questions. Religion, whether Christian or not, is irrelevant to this incident. Past incidents have no bearing on this, as one can readily determine if you read the news article. With regard to this incident, I have neither attacked nor defended any person’s religious liberty, because religion is irrelevant.
You base far too much of your accusations on assumptions. Stop and think about it: This is merely a photo of a military officer and a flag with a cross (taken, I might add, by a civilian photojournalist for his own paper). The only context is a news article written by a local paper that has nothing to do with religion. So, you answer a question for me: What is wrong with that picture?
If the only context is a news article written by a local paper that has nothing to do with religion, then why are you blogging about it Mr. Christian?
The photo was taken by Killeen Daily Herald photographer Steven Doll for a story on Fort Hood’s “spiritual fitness center.”
So, a story for Ft. Hood’s “spiritual fitness center” has nothing to do with religion?!? Another liar for Jesus.
Telling me my questions is irrelevant is not the same as answering it. I have to agree with Doobie Wah that religion is hardly irrelevant on a Christian military blog referencing the building of a religious military building by a known GO caught on tape giving his testimony in uniform.
BUT assuming religion has nothing at all to do with the photo, in a hypothetical land far far away, what would you think IF he was a Satanist under an inverted pentagram photographed opening up this spiritual fitness center with a history of giving his Satanic testimony while in uniform? The key question here is IF. Please don’t dismiss my question as being irrelevant because I’m not tying it to the issue. Would such a photo concern you or not or would you be perfectly good with that? An answer would help build your credibility and help me understand your position. If you can find it in yourself to answer this question it would certainly be appreciated. Thanks.
Perhaps because I want to? As I noted, others are accusing the general of violating regulations because he’s “standing in front of a Christian flag.” I haven’t attached religion to this; they have.
Perhaps you should try reading the article.
I didn’t say your question was irrelevant. I said religion was irrelevant. Being irrelevant means that it doesn’t matter what the religious symbol is. Whether he was standing in front of a cross, a pentacle, a star of David, or a picture of Mickey Mouse, the treatment of the incident is the same, as is what I “think” of it. The context of the photo supplied by the article indicates it had nothing to do with religion (nor specifically Christianity).
The “answer” to this post will be posted in another article, as I alluded in the post itself. Until then, I will say this: the same regulation that permits (or prohibits) the General from being photographed in front of a flag with a Christian cross would apply equally to any other religious symbol.
The main point here is that the General was accused of violating a regulation without anyone saying what that regulation was.
I have answered your question again: Within the context of this incident, I agree with the premise that all religious symbols should be treated equally.
Perhaps you could consider answering one of the many questions posed to you. It would “build your credibility” and “be appreciated.” Thanks.
Fair enough.
“So… you’d suggest that the military censor photos by private citizens? Or should the military govern camera angles?”
I do not suggest censorship of private citizens. I don’t suggest governing camera angles. I suggest that GOs recognize their surroundings and remove symbols that do not further the secular mission of the armed forces. For example, I would suggest a GO giving a speech not have a NAZI flag in the background or any symbol that when combined with a uniformed officer in a photo could present a message, in context or not, that degrades that mission. I simply suggest situational awareness. In this case, I doubt there was a lack of SA but who knows.
“What does his religion have to do with it? That had nothing to do with the article or the photo.”
I think you’re clearly wrong here. I might add an “obviously.”
“Our adversaries object to many factual facets of American culture–nevermind those that are overstated or fictional. Should we alter our culture as a result?”
I’m not talking about altering culture. I’m talking about having SA.
“So your basic contention is that it should not be permissible for a military member to be photographed near religious symbology, despite the fact that you don’t know whether or not it violates regulations?”
I contend that a GO in uniform should not address a crowd of people with a religious symbol nearby unless they are a chaplain. Especially if the GO is known to proselytize while in uniform making video propaganda (just as this photo could be used as showing a GO with a cross and thereby inviting the inference of an officially recognized religion). I’m not taking about regulation. I’m giving my opinion on what should be done. The fact is religion is inherently divisive and military officers should remain religiously neutral, in my opinion, because there is no need for religion in the government workplace. While you may defend a Satanic GO doing the same thing in this blog the reality is such a move would generate a massive problem in the military because that religion is not of the judaeo-christian majority. Religion is peddled as comforting in the military but in my experience it is more divisive especially when it leaves the chapel (which is easily found by anybody that wants to use it) and enters the non-chapel military workplace.
“You mean something similar to this? No one has complained about mixing military uniforms and other symbols in the same picture, that I know of. Someone has complained about the one referred to in this post.”
I’m not sure about that photo but I assume it has something to do with the fallen wiccan soldier’s wife that wanted a pentagram on her husband’s military grave stone? People may not have commented on that photo but as I recall it took quite some time before the woman was allowed to put the symbol on the grave. That religion wasn’t invited into the club for some time by the VA if I recall correctly.
“So, you answer a question for me: What is wrong with that picture?”
It shows a lack of SA in the best case.
I look forward to your answer to your own question.
That wasn’t the point. When you forward the meme that because our adversaries oppose something we do/say/feel/etc that it should be changed, you have to realize it can apply beyond the circumstances in question.
So we need to consider every possible out-of-context interpretation? What about all the other examples of military officers in uniform? Are they equally implying endorsement of Judaism, Islam, Wicca, and Buddhism?
Why is the context important to you about the Wiccan photo, but not for the Christian photo? You addressed only the background of what led to the photo, not the fact that a military officer appeared in a photo with a religious symbol, which is what this entire conversation is about.
So you agree that it was wrong for the MRFF to publicly accuse General Brooks of violating military regulations. Answering that question was the point of this entire discussion.
The answer to this question can be seen here.