Christians can and should be involved in public discourse, particularly with respect to Christianity in the public square.  This may mean that they will have opportunities to support statements with which they agree, refute those that they do not, and defend the actions of Christians against unjust or unfounded accusations.  Throughout such discourse, they must endeavor to do so with tolerance and respect for the beliefs and ideas of others.  While there is generally nothing wrong with a stern defense, it is sometimes easy to adopt prejudicial views rather than respond with consideration.  While Christians should be emboldened to speak the truth, even the recent “Evangelical Manifesto” took Christians to task for “expressing the truth without love.”

Christians should remember, too, that tolerance means to respect another’s rights to have different beliefs.  Contrary to modern interpretations, it does not mean that one has to accept those beliefs or agree to their opposing truth claims.  This was once simplified as respecting another person’s “right to be wrong.”  (Pluralism, on the other hand, asserts that there is no single “right” answer; in fact, opposing beliefs may be equally “right.”)

In the military, such respect for another’s beliefs is not only recommended, it is required.  While a civilian can run another person’s faith into the ground without recourse, a military member who did the same to another would come under official sanction.  This is not because the military supports one faith over another, nor is it because some faiths “need protection.”  Rather, it is because the “good order and discipline” of a unit, and its ability to accomplish its mission, depend on a cohesiveness that cannot exist outside of an environment of mutual respect.  Again, two military members may have any of a variety of opposing beliefs—religious or atheist, Democrat or Republican, Northerner or Southerner.  The military does not require that service members have the same beliefs—only that they treat each other with respect and accomplish the mission nonetheless.

Institutionally, there are times the military may treat religions as “special,” because there are often greater issues as stake.  For example, religious buildings are not routinely targeted in warfare by those adhering to the laws of war, and they are often avoided even if they do become legitimate targets.  In Iraq today, it would not be surprising to find that US military actions are reduced on Friday, out of respect for the Muslim holy day.  While similar intentional religious deference in America might be decried as unConstitutional, in Iraq those actions serve a strategic purpose.  Islam is not merely a religious issue, it is a cultural one, and it permeates the actions and beliefs of both American allies and adversaries in the region.

That is likely the reason that a US soldier was recently sent home from Iraq after he was found to have used the Koran for a target on a small arms range.  It was likely also the motivation behind high ranking officers apologizing to local Iraqis and kissing a Koran before gifting it to them.  In the United States, that soldier’s actions were not illegal (though the officers’ actions may have been challenged on Constitutional grounds).  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), there are no direct prohibitions for the soldier’s actions.  Rather, his actions risked harming allied relations and reversing attempts to undo the anti-Islamic perceptions of Americans in the region.

Officers may have spoken out of turn when they described his actions as “criminal behavior,” but it is possible he will be punished under general rules for professional conduct.  While some may disagree with the punishment of a soldier for actions that are not “technically” illegal and which seem to sanction a particular religion, there seems to be little doubt that, maliciously or not, his actions undermined the efforts of the military in Iraq.  (His departure may also have been hastened to avoid potential calls for him to be subject to Iraqi law, which may include Islamic protections of the Koran.)

The relationship among military members, the military institution, and religious issues is a topic of ongoing debate.  Military Christians need not be silent, but they should endeavor to “speak the truth with love.”  They need not agree with all beliefs, but they should respect the beliefs of others.  Finally, they should hold themselves to the highest standards of professional conduct, such that there is not even a perception of wrongdoing.  Ultimately, America benefits from the civil, respectful, moral, and ethical leadership of its citizens and its soldiers.