By AC GRAYLING, GUARDIAN
Added: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:00:00 UTC

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_grayling/2007/10/downward_christian_soldier.html

There is no reason for the head of the British army to air his religious ideas - they have no relevance to his job or our troops.

Let us first leave aside the fact that if General Sir Richard Dannatt were genuinely and fully consistent in his views as an evangelical Christian, he would not be a general or indeed any kind of soldier (except a "Christian soldier" in the meaning of the hymn). His trade is war, war involves killing, the rather thin ethics of the founder of his faith implies pacifism and explicitly demands turning the other cheek rather than shooting and bombing: and so we see what professions of faith are really worth, in the long tradition of bishops blessing tanks.

But it is no surprise to find inconsistency and hypocrisy among the bulwarks of faith, and the general might share views about the good that the profession of killing does (not least, one supposes, to those who deserve it) with the crusaders and Torquemada and other more vigorous theorisers of what faith licenses and requires. That will not make his views less inconsistent or unpalatable, but at least less hypocritical.

The point here, however, is the general's comments about the need he feels to tell his squaddies that an afterlife awaits them if they die in battle, and (here I paraphrase) that Jesus is with them amidst the explosions and whistling bullets as they fight. Well: we must suppose that he really believes this BS, because if it were a case of bolstering the courage of his troops with falsehoods (as they are) that he knew to be such, it would be as dishonest and dishonourable a thing as one could imagine. Instead of which, it is something else: as follows.

That a grown man of some intelligence and experience believes what he does is, as ever, proof (the joke owes itself to David Hume) that miracles still occur. What is unacceptable is that he does not keep the miracle to himself, that he aspires to proselytise, inculcate, enjoin or encourage people in a disciplinary hierarchy under him to think and act in line with those personal views, that he does so in a context in which people who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way are being treated in his remarks as moral children needing to be solaced with fairy stories, and that what he is saying - clearly without recognising the irony, the bitter irony - is a version of the rubbish that impels people of a different (and from the general's point of view - were he consistent - blasphemous and false) faith to kill and die also, too many of them as suicide bombers attacking the innocent, believing in a life after death full of rewards, and enjoying spiritual strength as they seek them through murder and mayhem.

All these are indictable offences before the courts of reason, propriety and good sense, and the general at the very least merits being put on probation for them.

Imagine if any chief of the general staff said that religion is a lot of guff and the chaplains and ministers of other faiths in the armed forces should all be sacked. If that were thought inappropriate for a senior serving officer to say, then by exact parity of reasoning the remarks that the general has made are inappropriate. To repeat: his beliefs are his personal business; it is utterly unacceptable that he should use his rank in the armed services to push his personal views on those beneath him in rank. I think he should undertake to keep his religious views to himself while he serves, or he should resign and promote them, if he wishes, from private life.

Members of the armed services have volunteered for a hazardous profession. It is remarkable and admirable how much courage and dedication they display, and how much sacrifice they make - so hackneyed, these terms, yet far more true than hackneyed, which is why they always bear repeating - in the execution of the duties they have been rigorously trained to perform. Their duty, courage and sacrifice belongs to the army and through it the country; what they think about matters of value, life and death belongs to themselves. It is their own possession as individuals; it is not a matter for the sergeant major or the company commander or the chief of the general staff. Let the latter believe in pixies or the gods of Olympus, but let him shut up about it, and not bother his troops with matters other than the hard business they have in hand.

I can only guess what responses the general's remarks have met with in barracks, other than that they would probably not be repeatable in church on Sundays. If so, quite right too.

TAGGED: COMMENTARY, RELIGION