Despite controversies over religion in the military and the sensitivities of troops talking about religion with locals, the US Army has actually assigned a young Captain to do that very thing.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, US Army Capt James Hill’s job is to

turn Islam into a weapon against the Taliban.

Though the Wall Street Journal emphasizes the Captain’s religion (the article is entitled “The Baptist and the Mullah Launch a Faith-Based Attack on the Taliban”), Hill’s specialty is artillery–he is neither a civilian expert on religion nor a military Chaplain.  He is assigned to Afghan Army LtCol Abdul Haq, who is also a mullah, or religious teacher or leader.

In fulfilling his duties, the Captain even provides the Afghans with Islamic supplies, paid for by the US Army:

…the captain supplies the army with prayer rugs to give out in villages. He requisitioned loudspeakers for 30 bases and checkpoints so locals can hear soldiers being called to prayer.

While some American organizations decry the presence of religion in the US military, the Captain has the job of encouraging the Afghan Army to be more religious:

He spends long hours encouraging Afghan soldiers, particularly Lt. Col. Haq, to make a greater display of their faith.

Obviously, the relationship between Hill and Haq is based largely on religion, and Hill has built a rapport with the religiously adherent Muslim soldier:

“Body armor does no good — it’s in God’s hands,” the colonel, in bulletproof vest and helmet, told Capt. Hill before a patrol.

“God helped us make the body armor,” the captain responded, “so I think he wants me to wear it.”

Capt Hill has even told the Afghan troops their victory was from God, and they should continue to rely on God to keep it:

“The honorable people of Afghanistan struggled a long time and finally they received their victory by the grace of God,” the captain told the Afghan crowd. “Everyone should continue to ask God to keep this victory forever and be thankful.”

The US military is obviously attempting to “target” the most important center of gravity in the ongoing conflicts: the local population.  Its admirable intent is to show its support of the local population’s ideals, which include Islam.  It has promoted the practice of their faith by building religious facilities, giving them prayer rugs and loudspeakers, and even handing out Korans.

Noticeably, the public reaction to this support of Islam highlights an apparent double-standard.  When there is even a slight perception that the US military might be associated with Christianity, activist organizations decry it as a violation of the Constitution.  When the US military takes action in support of Islam, there is silence.

No one complained when the US military officially distributed (and kissed) Korans which were unsolicited by local citizens.  However, an attempt by a US military Chaplain to provide Bibles for third country nationals in Iraq–at their request–was decried as coercive proselytizing, a violation of General Order Number 1, and a violation of US postal regulations.  (Despite the outcry, there is no evidence of any official action against the Chaplain.)

In this current case, even Michael Weinstein, known for his hyperbolic blood-letting soliloquies about religion “engaging the machinery of the state,” has remained silent as the US military has explicitly supported Islam in the region.  He and others have declined to lodge complaints of religious favoritism or establishment, despite the fact that Islamic materials, procured at ‘American taxpayer expense,’ are used not to support the free exercise of American troops, but to advocate for a specific religion in the local communities.

The discrepancy highlights a stark contrast.  Activists claim it is illegal for private citizens to ship Arabic Bibles into Iraq.  At the same time, Arabic Korans are freely distributed–some at US government expense–and those same activists say nothing.  There are faiths besides Islam represented in Afghanistan as well, though not always freely, yet it is only the US support of Islam that goes unnoticed.

With regard to the US military, activists like Michael Weinstein and the MRFF have chosen to treat Islam and Christianity differently; just because they do, however, does not mean that the military should.

The intent is not to say that the military should restrict its interaction with Islam as it has with Christianity.  The US military can, and should, take actions that may be perceived to be “supporting” a religion.  It does so when it guarantees the free exercise of its own troops, and it does so when it attempts to “win the hearts and minds” of the populations for which it fights.  Neither course of action is illegal, unConstitutional, or reprehensible.

Still, all religions should be treated equally and fairly, insomuch as military strategy, force protection, and the mission allow.  In the end, there is no Constitutional problem with Chaplains providing local language Bibles any more than there is a problem providing Korans.  There is also no Constitutional problem with the current US support of Islam in Afghanistan (though there are some very valid strategic ones).

Most often, the US military, as a government entity, does an admirable job of attempting to balance its treatment of religion.  It does not always do so perfectly.  It should certainly be held accountable when it does not, but it should be applauded when it does.  On the other hand, advocacy organizations that berate the legal and appropriate treatment of only one religion reveal their actual agenda.

Religion in the military–whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any other–is neither the panacea nor the pariah that some would make it out to be.  Religious freedom is, however, a basic human liberty and American core value.  The lack of religious freedom in Afghanistan may be where the greater conflict lies.