By I have to wonder if these guys are linked back to the recent Al Jazeera story?:
The Pentagon was involved in the production of a cable program that featured two so-called “extreme” missionaries embedded with a U.S. Army unit in Afghanistan trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.
The popular reality series, “Travel the Road,” aired on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and featured Will Decker and Tim Scott, two so-called “extreme” missionaries who travel the globe to “preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth and encourage the church to be active in the Great Commission.”
The other cable program green-lit by the Pentagon is “God’s Soldier,” which aired in September on the Military Channel, and was filmed at Forward Operating Base McHenry in Hawijah, Iraq. It features an Army chaplain openly promoting fundamentalist Christianity to active-duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a watchdog organization, amended a federal lawsuit it filed against the Department of Defense last year, currently in federal District Court in Kansas City, Kansas to “include these despicable unconstitutional promotions of fundamentalist Christianity in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan,” said MRFF founder and president Mikey Weinstein.Part of the second season of “Travel the Road” was filmed on location in Afghanistan and aired in April 2006, where Decker and Scott were embedded with the Army, and shows numerous scenes of the men accompanying U.S. Army soldiers on patrol. The missionaries are also filmed evangelizing the local Afghans by distributing New Testaments to them in their native Darri language. [The Public Record]
Read the rest but if this is true, any soldier conducting missionary work in either Iraq or Afghanistan should be investigated because these activities are against established regulations and actually increase the danger against US troops by unnecessarily provoking the surrounding population.
If you want to go be a missionary then get out of the Army and fly yourself to Afghanistan and hope you don’t end up like the Korean missionaries,
11:48 pm on May 7th, 2009 1
Belief is one thing, firing upon others from up high is like a pillbox with no back door. Expect grenades!
12:25 am on May 8th, 2009 2
These soldiers are necessary to balance the soldiers that are partying in the Iraqi juicy bars……
1:25 am on May 8th, 2009 3
To Kris Hillman:
I am strong. I can eat aaaalllllll my vegetables and dirt too. I can lift a car way over my head. Torrid Quicken!!!
1:46 am on May 8th, 2009 4
Send those morons back home.
1:58 am on May 8th, 2009 5
Lemmy,
You are strong. You missed my point, BTW.
2:07 am on May 8th, 2009 6
The answer is:
YES.
to the subject at ROK DROP's hand.
Kris
8:53 am on May 8th, 2009 7
This calls the whole report into question for me.
It is against the Constitution for a military chaplain to promote Christianity — to active-duty soldiers???
Missionaries embedded with units reaching out to Afghanies or Iraqis is one thing.
Reaching out to US soldiers, in a war zone or not, is another.
10:34 am on May 8th, 2009 8
Chaplains are able to promote their own denominations only to service members who are already active in that same denomination. And they are certainly barred from conducting missionary work during military operations. The biggest part of being a chaplain is being compassionate and impartial to people of other faiths. The more fundamental that you are in your beliefs, the quicker you are to judge others against those beliefs.
Extremism in anything is a breeding ground for intolerance. Islamic extremism, Christian extremism, Fox News, Greenpeace, Rush Limbaugh, PETA, etc, can all be so off-balanced that their extremism cancels out whatever effectiveness they hope to attain.
11:01 am on May 8th, 2009 9
You left out secular extremism and intolerance.
12:45 pm on May 8th, 2009 10
People like Mikey Weinstein usually become Christian and are even more passionate in their Christian beliefs. Like Saul becoming Paul. I don't see a problem with allowing people in Afghanistan the opporutnity to read the Christian bible. US citizens have the opportuntiy to read other folks religious books if they so desire. What is the Afghanistan government afraid of? I am proud of our brave, Christian Soldiers. The USSR failed in their Afghanistan attempt. If we forget our Christian values we could fail also.
2:02 pm on May 8th, 2009 11
I've generally avoided the subject but have been amused in the past at the level of intolerance educated people in the West often have for missionaries or the idea of Christianity in a different culture like in Korea.
I'd be dead set against the US military or government in Afghanistan and Iraq being tied to the promotion of Christianity simply because of the amount of damage it would do to the security of our forces over there and even our home national security.
But, beyond that, in general, I'm amused at how the typical critics give so little consideration to — free will.
They attack the idea of missionaries as if the native people's didn't have a will of their own and could be controlled like robots – as if they had no choice in the matter.
Take for instance – the efforts supported by the rich government of Saudi Arabia to promote its version of Islam in the United States:
It's perfectly alright to look at the material they produce and criticize it for what says, but you shouldn't, in a democracy, demonize it in kneejerk fashion just because it is an effort to promote a religion.
In a democracy, we believe in all these freedoms because we believe in the ability or at least the right of individuals to think for themselves.
4:07 pm on May 8th, 2009 12
There's a big difference between handing out Bibles to people who are relatively well-off, educated, and comfortable, and doing the same amongst poor, uneducated, and destitute Afghanis.
Furthermore, the US is a Christian country by tradition, only, whereas Afghanistan is a nation of Muslims by constitution and law.
8:13 pm on May 8th, 2009 13
Personally, I do not advocate the involvement of the U.S. military in religious missions work of any sought. However, I’m a little puzzled by the reasoning in the following comments:
“There’s a big difference between handing out Bibles to people who are relatively well-off, educated, and comfortable, and doing the same amongst poor, uneducated, and destitute Afghanis.”
I would think that the Afghans would actually sense of greater need for God than affluent, book smart and materially comfortable people in the West.
“Furthermore, the US is a Christian country by tradition, only, whereas Afghanistan is a nation of Muslims by constitution and law.”
I’ll need to take this in two parts: “Furthermore, the US is a Christian country by tradition, only…”
Am I to understand that by “only” you mean that the United States was never truly Christian in a real sense of the word?
“…Afghanistan is a nation of Muslims by constitution and law.”
Should grown adults then be given no choice but to violate their consciences and principles out of fear of a tyrannical law?
9:46 am on May 9th, 2009 14
I'll take it that what he means by the level of education and wealth line – is what I've heard a fair number of educated people in the US say — the kind of people who think Buddhism or Hinduism are oh so quaint and cultural but who'd rather spit (metaphorically speaking) on "born again" Christians (by which they mean any practicing Christian)…
…that handing out books to educated middle class people and above is fine – because those people will have enough sense and intellectual defenses to toss them aside…
…but the uneducated and poor are subject to brainwashing like this…
9:47 am on May 9th, 2009 15
Service members who violate military regulations should face the consequences. Period. Service members overseas who violate local laws should face the consequences according to the SOFA. Period.
11:16 am on May 9th, 2009 16
I assume your thoughts are based on the premise that the military regulations are both reasonable and lawful. I find both U.S. military regulations and the SOFA agreement reasonable and lawful, as far as my current limited understanding of them is concerned. The day those regulations part company with one’s ethical code and principles is the day one may have to separate from any given organization or take issue with the state one is a citizen of.
11:45 am on May 9th, 2009 17
Our nation respects those who use civil disobedience to resist unjust laws. Those who engage in civil disobedience pay fines and/or go to jail. Those who wished to protest the legal penalties imposed upon them have used non-violent means such as hunger strikes.
11:54 am on May 9th, 2009 18
One reason why some educated agnostics are more critical of Christianity than of Buddhism or Hinduism is that the latter two religions do not actively seek converts. A second reason is that Christianity has exerted tremendous political influence over the last thirty years. Religious leaders are within their First Amendment rights when they use the pulpit to advance a political agenda or garner support for a politician or a law. However, active involvement in politics by the Catholic church and many evangelical and fundamentalist churches make them fair game, just like any secular organization, for criticism by those who oppose the agendas, politicians, and laws these religious bodies support.
11:56 am on May 9th, 2009 19
Military regulations are basically just a guide to go by and are "violated" (broken, bent, overlooked) every day. It seems the higher rank the individual is the less he/she seems to care what the Reg says. The consequences may be a charge under Article 92 of the UCMJ to use if the violation becomes a big deal. If all else fails use Article 134. I doubt many Soldiers know what is contained in the SOFA and could even identify the "blue book" even if they saw it. I cannot recall anyone being punished for a SOFA violation. Can anyone name one?
12:12 pm on May 9th, 2009 20
I'm not sure how far I can accept the idea that Buddhism doesn't actively seek converts. True, I've never had a Buddhist come to my door to hand out literature, but I've probably only had 2 or 3 do that for Christianity too…
…but, Buddhist temples have spread, no?
They might not be as into evangelical work as the Christians, but they have spread their message and served new converts around the world.
Then if we look at activity since the Internet age, they have been doing much to translate and offer their texts online.
But, my biggest feeling against this common idea of the passivity of other religions came from a recognition I had on the many walks with I had with an older Canadian teacher in Korea. At least once each time we went for a long walk for exercise, he'd point up to one of those big red neon crosses on some Christian church, and say something derogatory about it.
After awhile, it finally dawned on me to point out – when we passed one of those Nazi-like symbols for Buddhism in front of Buddhist place of worship: Buddhism isn't native to Korea.
(Neither was Confucianism).
Buddhism also wasn't native to China. Or Japan.
For a religion that doesn't promote itself to others, it has sure gotten around…
12:21 pm on May 9th, 2009 21
"A second reason is that Christianity has exerted tremendous political influence over the last thirty years. "
This is an interesting statement. Honestly…
I'd have thought the exact opposite were true:
That the influence of Christianity on our public, political life has declined markedly since the founding of the nation.
In fact, it seems to me what has actually grown over the last couple of decades is — the attacks on Christianity in public. By groups like the ACLU. By a lot of other groups using the courts. And by the left and more in general in their frequent, constant attacks on conservatives and conservatism as being a type of moral majority fascism. And they have been effective too. They have had more success than the Christian Coalition segments of the Republican party and conservatism. They have effectively demonized those that clearly fit the kind of public political mixing with religion. And they've parlayed that demonizing of the political Christian right into attacks on Christianity in general — in favor of preaching the better values of secularism. Especially at university but in pop culture and in lower education as well.
In short, it seems to me the last thirty years is better characterized as one in which active secularization has been the norm instead of some rise of political Christian authority.
12:33 pm on May 9th, 2009 22
It would be more accurate to say that Buddhism doesn't proselytize as actively as some Christian denominations do.
The older Canadian teacher was a twit. My agnostic friends and I were not bothered by the presence of red crosses everywhere. We were non-plussed by Korean students and acquaintances asking us, "Do you believe in Jesus?"
12:52 pm on May 9th, 2009 23
Restrictions on abortion post-Roe-versus-Wade, restrictions on forms of birth control, government funding of abstinence-only programs, and bans on same-sex marriage are examples of laws and regulations enacted with strong organized support from conservative Christians. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The cultural, social, and legal changes of the 60s and 70s caused the pendulum to swing to the right, then center-left under Clinton, and then to the far right under Bush.
Americans are less religious than we were a few decades ago, yet the political influence of Christianity has grown as a response to changes in social mores and laws reflecting those mores.
12:58 pm on May 9th, 2009 24
USinKorea
"That the influence of Christianity on our public, political life has declined markedly since the founding of the nation."
Hmmm… after a few minutes of reflection, it seems the answer is yes and no.
The influence of Christianity as a broadly-accepted social movement guiding the actions of its members within an established moral framework has been declining.
On the other hand, the influence of Christianity as a political movement actively involved in promoting an ideological agenda has been increasing.
Like any other political movement, from sociialist to neocon, this makes Christianity open to vocal criticism by those who disagree.
It is especially irritating when the "religion card" is then played and any criticism of Christian political goals are represented as criticism of God, religion or people of faith.
1:11 pm on May 9th, 2009 25
GI,
The spam filter will not accept the correctly-spelled word "sociialist".
What kind of spam filter will accept "triple-ripple butt plug", "discount penis-enhancing pills" and "turd-eating midget whore" but won't accept "sociialist movement"?
Agreed… socialiist is a dirtier word… but if choosing the topic of conversation, I would rather the spam filter remove "pre-teen sodomy of the handicapped" than "sociialist agenda".
1:29 pm on May 9th, 2009 26
Uh, I agree with you.
2:58 pm on May 9th, 2009 27
We're likely to get hopelessly lost here — but…
All the things you mention are things enacted through the efforts of secular liberalism against tradition – the traditions of nation founded on Judeo-Christianity to be sure – but each of those items is not simply opposed in differing levels based on religion.
The percentage of people who favor limits to abortion or any of those other items is higher than the percentage of evangelical Christians (as liberals generally think of them) in the society.
Without given specific examples, in general, I'd say there are a fair number of people who object on the basis of their belief in what constitutes the government's prerogative and what constitutes the family's domain – without reference to what a religion says.
3:29 pm on May 9th, 2009 28
"On the other hand, the influence of Christianity as a political movement actively involved in promoting an ideological agenda has been increasing."
My problem with this is one of historical interpretation:
Given what we should know about our founding fathers and the society until the post-modern period — say – after the 1950s — I can't see how anyone could argue Christianity is having a larger influence on government and policy than in the past.
In fact, the idea seems ridiculous if you look to our past and our past leaders.
Christianity was not only stronger in the society in the past, it was more openly referenced by members of government and by government institutions themselves.
Then, I'd also say, the percentage of politically active religious people – the Christian Coalition types – is far from what liberal critics make it out to be —- which is a result of the rather successful demonization of them —- (meaning – distortion of the number of right-wingers activated by religion is a product – a tactic – by the left to demonize and marginalize them).
So, for example, if someone has a problem with partial birth abortion or schools handing out the pill to middle school students, they are quickly tossed out of consideration by being labeled a John Bircher/religious fanatic.
To me, at least, it seems the secular evangelicals outnumber the Christian Coalition types when it comes to political action.
And it also seems fairly clear that the attacks are more about marginalizing conservatism than it is about combating the political influence of Christianity or political groups closely aligned with the church.
For example, some of the strongest openly Christian support given to one of the political parties — comes from the Congressional Black Caucus:
Going back to the Civil Rights Movement and further on, churches in the black community were a primary driving force behind political action. And that is still true today, I'd think. Many leaders in the black community either started out as ministers or are closely related to ministers — meaning, black leaders often show themselves to be close to church leaders and use them as a means of uniting the black community in political action. (And of course when you consider the political activity of Louis Farrakhan and his organiztion, this goes beyond the Christian religion)…
….but…..I can't ever recall having heard people on the left attacking the Congressional Black Caucus or other political leaders in the black community for being too closely connected in political activity to churches and church leaders.
Rather odd, no?
4:02 pm on May 9th, 2009 29
“All the things you mention are things enacted through the efforts of secular liberalism against tradition – the traditions of nation founded on Judeo-Christianity to be sure…”
This is so true, USINKOREA. Those who have a deep historical understanding are aware of this.
What one is dealing with here is not simply a conflict of secular humanist versus Bible believing Christian but a worldview conflict between those whose absolute derives itself in divine revelation, whether it be the Bible, Koran, Torah, Tripitaka, and a worldview whose adherents wittingly or unwittingly have absolutes founded on self and the road of least social resistance. There absolute is as follows: There are no absolutes. Absolutes are simply seen as whatever will maintain the peace, even if that ‘false’ peace is based on untruths. One begins with a divine being setting the standard; the other begins with a human choosing his or her own standard and never the two shall meet. The one beginning with the human starting point will aim to eliminate or marginalize the one beginning with divine revelation because truth always equals ‘peaceful’ confrontation, and the one starting from the human point does not believe it and does not want to hear it.
1:32 am on May 10th, 2009 30
"…are quickly tossed out…"
By whom exactly? Please be specific about which persons or organizations are dismissing opponents of partial birth abortions and the like as John Birchers.
"It seems to me that secular evangelists outnumber the Christian Coalition types when it comes to political action."
Please support with data, such as the names and membership numbers of organizations you consider as belonging to each group. Otherwise, it's just your personal perception.
1:43 am on May 10th, 2009 31
You are correct that apparent opposition to political activism by organized religion is really opposition to their agendas. In other words, it is not who but what they stand for.
Earlier someone observed that those who favor conservatism perceive that secular liberals have too much influence while those who oppose conservatism think that the Catholic and evangelical churches have too much influence. Not all conservatives, however, are aligned with the social agenda of conservative churches, and likewise, some liberals are devout Christians who agree with conservative churches on some issues.
2:41 am on May 10th, 2009 32
There is nothing I can do about it. Akismet has whatever algorithm they use to detect spam.
11:36 am on May 10th, 2009 33
Of course it is my perception – a perception based on watching the news and having spent a lifetime in the society. If your perception is different, that's fine. Readers will judged based on their own.
But I feel fairly confident my perception will match that of many. Abortion is a hot button issue in our society, and you can clearly see through the press, which is overwhelmingly liberal and in favor of abortion rights, people are quick to lump anti-abortion people in with the Christian Coalition types that have been under attack for a good number of years now.
You don't have to chase down statistics to see this. It is in the press routinely. They have demonized "social conservatives" as successfully as the Republicans in the 1980s demonized the word liberal.