New York Times on Religion & the Military
Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times has written an article revisiting the Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s complaints over religious content in Army suicide prevention material, as previously discussed here.
The article mentions that Michael Weinstein was able to meet with Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz. It is a potential irony that Schwartz, like Weinstein, is Jewish (a fact not missed at his nomination), and that his class of 1973 at the Air Force Academy was replaced by Weinstein’s class of 1977. Schwartz made no secret of his faith as a cadet and has not indicated that he experienced negative repercussions, while Weinstein claims a disturbing religious discrimination event while a cadet is the motivation behind all he does.
Weinstein reportedly said of the meeting with Schwartz
he [took] it very seriously, [and] he also acknowledged that there is a problem
Weinstein previously called Schwartz a “yes man” unable to “stand up” for what was right:
Because there’s a Jew in there, that’s supposed to make everything fine? It’s not fine. It doesn’t make a difference that he’s there. The reason to me is that he’s a yes man. He’s not going to stand up to do what needs to be done. But we’ll see.
Lichtblau notes that groups that oppose the MRFF fear an overreaction in the opposite direction.
Various Christian organizations and churches have for over 70 years been allowed to proselytize unhindered in the Armed Forces.
Recently this activity has reached levels that push the envelope on religious freedom and violate the very constitutional provisions that protect the free practice of religion.
Officer’s Christian Fellowship’s main Purpose statement:
1. “Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up a Godly military”
This excludes, except by conversion or coercion, all but willing, participating Christians.
OCF’s 3 expressed goals:
1.”have a spiritually transformed U.S. military.
2. Ambassadors for Christ IN UNIFORM.
3. Empowered by the holy spirit.
Indicates a mandatory conversion of military members from original belief system to prescribed Christian dogma. Requires military members to illegally undertake Christian-based proselytizing as part of their military duty and mistakenly recognizes autocratic power from a doctrinal spirit world instead of constitutional law.
OFC’s main bible study portion states
1. “not to allow the opposition, ALL OF WHICH IS SPEARHEDED BY SATAN, to stop OCF from regaining territory for Christ in the U.S. military….
This statement is discriminatory and exclusionary. It denigrates, condemns and prohibits all other religious beliefs in the military.
Campus Crusade for Christ Military Mission Purpose Statement says:
1. Evangelize and Disciple All Enlisted Members of the US Military.
This indicates the use of command influence to obtain acquiescence and cooperation from lower four grade personnel in attending Christian based services, rites and ceremonies.
2. Ministry at each basic training center and beyond. Transform our culture through the US Military.
This indicates an omnipresent official contingent of ministry personnel in military installations and thinly veiled program to use the military in the process of religious evangelism and conversion.
3. Develop Christian Military Leaders for the 21st Century.
This indicates an elevation and favoring of Christian leaders to the exclusion of leaders of other faiths.
4. Spiritual development of future military officers and enlisted leaders at service academies, hundreds of ROTC universities, and operational locations around the world.
This indicates advanced level Christian proselytizing and indoctrination of student level cadets in regimented environments which allow for little or no resistance to command.
5. Stop the Unraveling of the Military Family. Forge healthy families for the next generation of military children through seminars, resources, and support groups at installations around the world.
This indicates a control mechanism which keeps the entire military families hostage to Christian principal and doctrine.
6. Arm Troops in Harm’s Way with Spiritual Resources. A Bible in every foxhole.
This indicates intense Christian programming even in combat conditions which has the effect of reducing fighting efficiency.
7. Resources to empower Chaplains in every Service of the Armed Forces.
This indicates the granting of special powers to Christian Chaplains to engage in Christian evangelizing outside legal parameters with complete immunity.
8. Networks to keep service members connected during their entire careers.
Indicates a central directory of Christian personnel to maintain order and control function, prevent straying and allow for immediate location.
9. Global Online Evangelism, Discipleship, and Leader Training for Military Personnel around the world.
Indicates world-wide Christian evangelism network maintaining cadres in the Armed Forces for continuing religious indoctrination.
10. Touch hundreds of thousands with the Gospel and link them to resources and counseling.
Indicates a massive global Christian missionary effort endorsed by the US Armed Forces.
11. Change Continents for Christ. Transform nations of world through the militaries of world.
Indicates an intent to engender further Christian Crusades.
12. Train, Equip, and Partner with indigenous leaders to establish strategic sending platforms in each region of world.
Indicates alliances with other Christian-controlled countries to maintain Christian world dominance.
Bruce L. Fister, a retired Air Force general who is executive director of the Officers’ Christian Fellowship, active on 200 military bases worldwide said: .
1. “You can’t and shouldn’t eliminate the spiritual component in the military,”
There is no civil or military law requiring or endorsing a “spiritual component” in the armed forces. Therefore, if one exists and poses a threat to the good order, cohesion, obedience and effectiveness of US Military Forces, it can and should be eliminated.
2. “The problem is that Christians are going to operate one way or the other.
What Mr. Fister is really saying is: Christians will operate in the military under the tenets set forward by the CCC Military Mission with or without sanction and irrespective of any law or regulation prohibiting such practice.
3. Whenever the church has been persecuted, it’s grown stronger.”
Here Mr. Fister mistakes Constitutional and military regulation for persecution. Religious Proselytizing is regulated by the US Constitution Amendment One, UCMJ Articles: 92, 88, 121, 133, 134 and CENTCOM General Order 1 A, Part 2, Section J, relating to theaters of war. In addition, the Military Entrance Processing Command has issued new regulations to prevent religious proselytizing of recruits at its Military Entrance Processing Stations.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled:
Impermissible governmental endorsement of religion occurs whenever a public official — such as a military officer — takes any action that “‘conveys” or attempts to convey a message that religion or a particular religion is favored or preferred.” (quoting Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 38, 70 (1985).
Reduced to 5 simplest terms, the Supreme Court has held that the Establishment Clause prohibits any official action that promotes religion generally or shows favoritism toward any particular faith. Government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to “non-religion.” Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 604. Government or its representatives may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions).”); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982)
“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.”
Furthermore, limits on proselytizing by military chaplains and superior officers were clearly spelled out by a federal appeals court over twenty years ago. “The primary function of the military chaplain is to engage in activities designed to meet the religious needs of a pluralistic military community,” the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in 1985, in Katcoff v Marsh. Army chaplains were hired to serve military personnel “who wish to use them,” the Court observed; they are not authorized “to proselytize soldiers or their families.” Proselytizing by chaplains or the officer corps is a discriminatory, unconstitutional endorsement of religion that results in the religious harassment of our military personnel.
It is imperative that Christian proselytizing be contained and restricted to willing participants without the specter of command influence and to the extent allowed by military regulation .
Based on the above military regulation and civil law, I submit that based on their current modus operandi, unregulated or unmonitored Christian evangelical organizations, churches and evangelical protestant military Chaplains allowed to operate by means of dogmatic, coercive and overt Christian proselytizing is unconstitutional.
Richard Baker
Regional Director
Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
Richard,
Your points about OCF and CCC are interesting but very subjective and not entirely accurate. In addition, some of your characterizations are melodramatic and illogical: supporting the military family is a “control mechanism”?
You need to update your boilerplate. That statement is no longer reflected on the OCF website.
That’s misleading, and not entirely accurate. First, taken in context, it appears Fister was not referring to a physical “component” but a “factor” or “aspect” of military life. Every military branch acknowledges four “pillars” to well-being: physical, emotional, social, and spiritual. Besides the fact that “spiritual” is foundational to many people, even outside of a religious meaning, would you really suggest that the military eliminate one degree of support for its members?
Second, there is precedent for a “spiritual” component. You yourself cited Katcoff, which stated that the chaplaincy, a “spiritual component” of the military, did not violate the Establishment Clause. You’re so anxious to make accusations that you don’t realize your own argument contradicts itself.
To be accurate, “civil law” would be created by the legislature. You cited only court decisions, which would be judicial precedent, not civil law. And, as I pointed out, not all your judicial precedent actually supported your case.
As private organizations, their actions cannot be unconstitutional. The Constitution restricts the federal government; it has no authority to restrict private citizens or organizations. Granted, Congress can create laws that govern private organizations, but as I noted, you have cited no such examples.
Certainly, you may find offense with some of the goals of those organizations, but that alone does not make them illegal.
The reason your text says “Reduced to 5 simplest terms…” is when copying from a PDF, the page number is often copied at a page break. You copied the last part of your comment from the complaint written by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (its on pages 4 and 5, available here). If the MRFF is going to rely on other organizations to form their arguments, you should at least give credit; presenting others’ words as your own is bad form.
To JD,
Thank you for your response.
I will readily admit that there is no contest betwenn the sharp minds of young Christian Fighter Pilots and old Vietnam Era rescue helo drivers. Occasionally I will see the writings of another person who makes, with great similarity, the points that I have been struggling to articulate.
In my haste to get these points into circulation, I may from time to time, use their version intead of mine neglecting to give credit to the authors but in the knowledge that we both had the same thoughts independently, I use their version which is, although identical in natuire, often much smarter than mine. I have done this mild form of plagiarism at least twice in my life. I am also the victim of such plagiarism and consider it to be a just punishment.
Research material and the often dark acts of dominion Christian evangelists are displayed in great quantity on the internet, including many of my thoughts. I feel comfortable using such information as it is basically my feelings juxtaposed with others. We, who are against Christian dominance in the military sound very much alike. I mightb also say that those of you who advocate for a single religion militray sound very sinmilar as well.