Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, August 23, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document Not So Fast, Christian Soldiers

by Michael L. Weinstein and Reza Aslan, LA Times

Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-aslan22aug22,1,2971273.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true
and
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/22/3331/

left behindThe Pentagon has a disturbing relationship with private evangelical groups.

Maybe what the war in Iraq needs is not more troops but more religion. At least that's the message the Department of Defense seems to be sending.

Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Pentagon abruptly announced that it would not be delivering "freedom packages" to our soldiers in Iraq, as it had originally intended.

What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which "soldiers for Christ" hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.

The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up, or OSU. Headed by former kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU is an official member of the Defense Department's "America Supports You" program. The group has staged a number of Christian-themed shows at military bases, featuring athletes, strongmen and actor-turned-evangelist Stephen Baldwin. But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the "Military Crusade."

Apparently the wonks at the Pentagon forgot that Muslims tend to bristle at the word "crusade" and thought that what the Iraq war lacked was a dose of end-times theology.

In the end, the Defense Department realized the folly of participating in any Operation Straight Up crusade. But the episode is just another example of increasingly disturbing, and indeed unconstitutional, relationships being forged between the U.S. military and private evangelical groups.

Take, for instance, the recent scandal involving Christian Embassy, a group whose expressed purpose is to proselytize to military personnel, diplomats, Capitol Hill staffers and political appointees. In a shocking breach of security, Defense Department officials allowed a Christian Embassy film crew to roam the corridors of the Pentagon unescorted while making a promotional video featuring high-ranking officers and political appointees. (Christian Embassy, which holds prayer meetings weekly at the Pentagon, is so entrenched that Air Force Maj. Gen. John J. Catton Jr. said he'd assumed the organization was a "quasi-federal entity.")

The Pentagon's inspector general recently released a report recommending unspecified "corrective action" for those officers who appeared in the video for violating Defense Department regulations. But, in a telling gesture, the report avoided any discussion of how allowing an evangelical group to function within the Defense Department is an obvious violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

The extent to which such relationships have damaged international goodwill toward the U.S. is beyond measure. As the inspector general noted, a leading Turkish newspaper, Sabah, published an article on Air Force Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, who is the U.S. liaison to the Turkish military — and who appeared in the Christian Embassy video. The article described Christian Embassy as a "radical fundamentalist sect," perhaps irreparably damaging Sutton's primary job objective of building closer ties to the Turkish General Staff, which has expressed alarm at the influence of fundamentalist Christian groups inside the U.S. military.

Our military personnel swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not the Bible. Yet by turning a blind eye to OSU and Christian Embassy activities, the Pentagon is, in essence, endorsing their proselytizing. And sometimes it's more explicit than that.

That certainly was the case with Army Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence. The Pentagon put him in charge of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in 2003. The same year, Boykin was found to be touring American churches, where he gave speeches — in uniform — casting the Iraq war in end-times terms. "We're in is a spiritual battle," he told one congregation in Oregon. "Satan wants to destroy this nation . . . and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army." The story wound up in newspapers, magazines and on "60 Minutes." And, of course, it was reported all over the Muslim world. The Pentagon reacted with a collective shrug.

American military and political officials must, at the very least, have the foresight not to promote crusade rhetoric in the midst of an already religion-tinged war. Many of our enemies in the Mideast already believe that the world is locked in a contest between Christianity and Islam. Why are our military officials validating this ludicrous claim with their own fiery religious rhetoric?

It's time to actively strip the so-called war on terror of its religious connotations, not add to them. Because religious wars are not just ugly, they are unwinnable. And despite what Operation Straight Up and its supporters in the Pentagon may think is taking place in Iraq, the Rapture is not a viable exit strategy.

Comments 1 - 11 of 11 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #65331 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Decent article. The fact that some in the US government are taking up Christian rhetoric is quite alarming. But I'm not about to "actively strip the so-called war on terror of its religious connotations". I don't think that religion is entirely to blame for the mess we have put ourselves in but I see no reason to ignore the obvious. Religion is playing a role. A dreadfully significant one.

Off topic: I wonder if Weinstein is a practicing Jew. And I wonder if he and Reza each think the other is going to hell.

Other Comments by roach

2. Comment #65341 by ericross on August 23, 2007 at 5:25 pm

 avatarThe type of behavior described in this article is alarming and obviously counterproductive, but not very surprising. As soon as a society dignifies the idea that there is a God and the Bible is his word, it should expect this kind of thing. Beliefs have consequences.

Other Comments by ericross

3. Comment #65346 by Thor on August 23, 2007 at 5:54 pm

 avatarI was pleasantly surprised by the content of this article, since my expectations are usually rather low whenever I see "Reza Aslan" in the byline...

He is a preppy Iranian-American journalist who constantly enthuses over various modern trends and pro-secularism developments inside Islam and complains about what he sees as the misrepresentation of Islam as a monolithic whole.
I even believe him that this is really his experience - but the circles of his well educated and thorougly secularized Iranian diaspora are hardly an indicator for large scale trends in the Islamic world.

Other Comments by Thor

4. Comment #65356 by njwong on August 23, 2007 at 7:38 pm

 avatarI seriously doubt any proselytisation moves by Christians in a Muslim country will be effective. Change must come from within the Muslims themselves.

There is a very interesting commentary by Diana Muir in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701691.html

In her article, she mentioned that for the Christian Enlightenment, it was the powerful Catholic Church that was oppressive and always resorted to the sword to bring people back to religion. The reformers were thus able to succeed in bringing about Reformation due to the people's disgust at such abuse of power by the authorities.

In the Muslim world today however, it is however the reformers who are resorting to the sword to bring people back to religion. It is the reformers who want to bring back fundamentalism into their society, while it was the other way round in Christianity where it is the reformers who wanted to reject fundamentalism.

Therefore, the background situation is not exactly the same as those that brought forth the Christian Reformation. I feel it is very much harder for the Muslims to bring about their own Enlightenment.

Other Comments by njwong

5. Comment #65360 by Theocrapcy on August 23, 2007 at 8:59 pm

 avatarThe Chaser (http://www.chaser.com.au/) had a skit once where a waiter ran around town in waiter garb and a pepper mill, hounding people for "cracked pepper?". This reminds me of that in a weird way, except this time it's "cracked religion?".

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

6. Comment #65395 by GordonHide on August 24, 2007 at 3:30 am

Yes, error in belief, all to often, leads to error in action.

Other Comments by GordonHide

7. Comment #65399 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2007 at 3:45 am

*gloomily* Not wishing to make this sound even worse then it is, but the ironic thing is that - given the fiasco that we're in already - an army of missionaries unleashed on the middle east might be one of the smarter moves. I don't like Christianity, but it is vastly better than that religion of psychopaths.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

8. Comment #65400 by pewkatchoo on August 24, 2007 at 3:54 am

 avatarFanusi
All you would do is replace islamic lunacy with christian lunacy. It would not change anything that is fundamentally wrong with the place. I see no real solution at all. It will require a total sea change in values, conscience and outlook of all the population to get anywhere. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

9. Comment #65401 by scooternyc on August 24, 2007 at 4:09 am

 avatarWhile the acts of brutality from Islam are done explicitly, the acts of brutality from Christianity(now that the crusades are over) are done implicitly,(and more deceptive) through the slow process of politics and our courts. (Danger! Will Robinson, Danger!)

Especially after watching CNN's programs the last 3 nights, our nation should be even more concerned with, not just the potential death from Islam radicals, but the death of our nation from Christian radical fundamentalists.

You owe it to yourself to watch all 6 hours of these programs and see for yourself the disease of the mind when it comes to religion of all forms and the destruction it seeks for its own self-aggrandized rapture.

NO RELIGION OR PEOPLE SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS PEACE LOVING WHO'S RELIGION TALKS ABOUT THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION OF OTHERS THROUGH ARMAGEDDON.

BUT TAKE COMFORT, YOU CAN BE "SAVED" IF YOU JUST BELIEVE IN SOME NON-EXISTENT DEITY.

Religion doesn't seek peace; it seeks its own dogma through indoctrination, control, manipulation and if given the chance here in the U.S., force, into adherence of "god's laws".

This is sick behavior. This is a disease of the mind.

It is true in our evolution as a species that religion once played its part to help evolve communities toward certain understandings for which we instinctively knew already but laid no words down.

But now religion is used only as a weapon by those who would seek to turn this democracy into a theocracy.

God is imaginary

Prayer is superstitious

Religion poisons everything

Other Comments by scooternyc

10. Comment #65640 by bermane on August 25, 2007 at 9:22 am

There is a tendency in human behavior that has to be unraveled from our DNA. It accounts for the Christian fundamentalists' disingenuity--the amazing fantasy of the end times--a child's fantasy of hide-and-seek; for radical Islamists' mindless self-destruction, for the ravaging of this world to make way for the next. The key behavior seems to be the need to be loyal, the need to submit to some higher authority, the desire to belong even if in the process we are ourselves annihilated.
Think of it: how could a living, breathing, exulting-in-being-alive creature chose to destroy itself, to hunger for some vague promise of a life beyond this life, essentially want to be dead when life is here and now? Why listen to an imam or a priest or rabbi or even a civic leader who invites you to die for his god when your own coursing blood tells you to embrace life? Because these leaders have told us that our sacrifice is what some higher authority wants of us, that it serves the purpose only some greater person or higher authority can see, which we cannot. Who is fool enough to trade the here-and-now for oblivion unless that behavior of self-annihilation serves some evolutionary purpose, echoes something we must have needed to do to advance the species out on the savannahs of our ancestry. The ultimate answer must be that we put loyalty, belonging, obedience before survival because at one time it served some purpose. Find the trigger of the behavior--God, paradise--send millions to their deaths, and imagine the JimJonesian cynicism of saying, in effect, 'Go forth and die so that I and my own kind survive and prosper.' Now we begin to see that there is some behavioral aspect to this, something like ants or bees, where the lesser entity paves the way to a better world for their betters with a line of their own corpses. Dehumanization.
I feel I fail to make my case, but it is worth some give-and-take to figure out how to purge humankind of this insane behavior on all sides, so that leaders asking for such sacrifice are themselves brought down before sons, daughters, mothers and fathers get in line to annihilate themselves and their own.
Comments?

Other Comments by bermane

11. Comment #65755 by willbonds on August 26, 2007 at 10:26 am

Although this is a bit off topic, I'm in favor of having society serve in the military from the top down, rather than the bottom up. This could have the effect of moderating the urge to go to war. Perhaps it might also mitigate the connection between fundie religion and militarism.

Other Comments by willbonds
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE