The Times of London online published an article on Chaplain (Lt Cdr) Carey Cash, the US Navy Chaplain at Camp David, the Presidential retreat. 

The article appeared to rely heavily (if not exclusively) on the Washington Post article on the same subject the day before, though it took a far more provocative tone.  It was entitled “‘Islam is violent’ says President Obama’s new pastor Carey Cash,” which is inaccurate on more than one level, and it attempted to emphasize what it claimed were Cash’s controversial beliefs.  (FoxNews repeated the article with the headline “Obama’s New Pastor Views Islam as Violent Faith.”)

First, it likened Obama’s link to Chaplain Cash with his experience with Reverend Wright:

More than a year after he was forced to disown his Chicago pastor, President Obama has begun to attend services led by a Christian chaplain who views Islam as a violent faith.

Then, it implied that Cash was an embattled public figure:

…Carey Cash, the navy chaplain at the Camp David presidential retreat…has been criticised for proselytising in the military and his mistrust of Islam.

It failed to qualify, however, that Cash “has been criticized” by only one, non-mainstream organization, and that those criticisms were unfounded.

The premise of the article’s emphasis on Cash’s “controversial” stance on the “violence” of Islam was a near verbatim quote from the Washington Post article:

In a 2004 book describing his deployment to Iraq the year before, Mr Cash calls Islam violent, a faith that “from its very birth has used the edge of the sword as a means to convert or conquer those with different religious convictions”.

The problem is that quote is taken woefully out of context.  Just a few sentences prior, he had qualified that “some interpretations” and “extremists” advocated violence against “unbelievers.”  The surrounding context follows:

Certainly it can be said that it is only the extremists in the Islamic tradition who actually interpret jihad to mean violence against “unbelievers.”  However, extreme manifestations, such as the actions of suicide bombers and crazed gunmen, don’t arise out of thin air.  They are part of a religious tradition that from its very birth has used the edge of the sword as a means to convert or conquer those with different religious convictions… [From A Table in the Presence, Carey Cash, 2004]

Cash then goes on to describe the theological basis for Islam, and contrasts it with that of Christianity.  Islam tends to be a religion where acts garner favor with God.  By contrast, the Christian faith emphasizes that there is nothing that a person can do to save themselves.  The heart of Christianity is simply faith in Jesus Christ.  In a book written before the President even held a national office, Cash, ever the spiritual leader, used the contrasting Islamic and Christian faiths to teach a theological lesson.

Despite the Times article (and the quote from the Washington Post) to the contrary, Chaplain Cash does not say that Islam is violent.  He does say that the violence of those who espouse Islam is “a window into the essence of the Muslim faith,” because it demonstrates that faith’s reliance on adherence to religious law.  He also does contrast the description of Islam as a “religion of peace” with the calls for “jihad against Americans, Christians, and Jews” from “leaders in the worldwide Islamic community.”  He does not call Islam “violent,” but he does not shy from Islam’s association with violence.

Might Chaplain Cash’s characterization of the Islamic faith be offensive?  Perhaps, though it is not inherently derogatory, and he repeatedly qualifies that most Muslims do not share the extremist view.  Such a perspective is also not unexpected from a Christian teacher, and no spiritual leader of any faith, military or otherwise, is obligated to filter their theology through a political spectrum. 

Most, though not all, Christians believe their faith is “exclusive.”  That is, since a tenet of Christianity is the belief that there is only one way to God (through Jesus Christ), any other faith is naturally ‘wrong’ or otherwise ‘false.’  Thus, Christians are likely to have at some point said, or believed, something critical about Islam (or other non-Christian religions).  Likewise, persons of other faiths are likely to have had critical comments about Christianity when noting their theological disagreements.  Due to political sensitivities, should people of those faiths be restricted from publicly serving, either in government or the military?

It is likely that the reporter for the Times was merely looking for a sensational headline for an otherwise heavily-borrowed article.  Perhaps rather than implying that simple religious differences are scandalous, however, Americans should take pride in their nation’s protection of human liberties that allow those of any faith, and no faith, to peacefully and respectfully believe as they choose.

No person is obligated to agree with or advocate for another belief system, nor are they obligated to alter their own beliefs where they diverge with others.  The ability to civilly disagree is a basic American concept.