You Say Proselytize, I Say Evangelize. Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off.
There has been a great deal of back and forth lately about freedom of religion in the military and how that applies to troops “sharing” their faith with their peers. As with most issues labeled as major battles in the “War on Religion”, the extremes are getting all of the attention and making this appear to be a far bigger deal than it really is.
It all started off with a meeting Mikey Weinstein of the MRFF with Air Force officials last month. Weinstein had requested the meeting with the Air Force JAG to address the topic of prosecuting troops who force their religion on others.
When word got out of an official meeting with Weinstein, a category 5 crap-storm developed among the Religious Right, led by retired Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, a senior official with the conservative Family Research Council.
That was enough to light up the opposition. The Family Research Council launched a petition April 29 imploring Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to “resist the demands of anti-Christian activists who are calling for a court-martial order upon chaplains and service members who share their faith.”
While it pains me to quote anything from Boykin, who is not exactly a spokesperson for religious freedom, it goes to my point of the extremes who are “fighting” this battle. To be fair, Weinstein has his own history of over-the-top and outlandish statements which seem more designed to gain publicity than accomplish anything meaningful.
Well, the uproar got the attention of the DoD, who later put out an official statement that clarified their position:
Service members can share their faith (evangelize) but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman, in an email.
If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence. Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case-by-case basis.
Harassment and discrimination have no place in military life, regardless its nature. When it does rear its ugly head, it should be prosecuted in the same way we deal with any issue that interferes with the good order and discipline of the service – court martial and non-judicial punishment. The issue then becomes how we define “harassment”.
While we have clear cut definitions of sexual and racial harassment, religious harassment falls into a pretty big grey area. As was famously said about pornography, “I might not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.”
When a chaplain gives a benediction, or conducts a service it’s pretty clear no one is being harassed. When your platoon sergeant berates you for not accepting his version of the word of God, we are clearly in the realm of harassment.
Just as the DoD statement explains, our current policies allow for punishment for those that take it too far. They also do so without hindering anyone else’s free practice of religion. Even if the offender is someone of superior rank, there are provisions in place for subordinates to file complaints above their chain of command. If it really is harassment or discrimination, then it should be dealt with appropriately.
In the end, I don’t really see a controversy here at all. Just like the majority of the discourse in the news these days, it’s a case of two groups from the ends of the spectrum competing for whose way of life is under attack more. I don’t deny that religious harassment and discrimination occurs, but to call it an epidemic that is destroying our military is as disingenuous as claiming that Christianity is under attack from our military leadership.
If one good thing comes of all of this, it highlights that the issue is not religious practice, it’s harassment. You can’t intimidate and berate others and hide behind the banner of “religious freedom”. We get to the root of the issue by focusing on the actions of the perpetrator and how they are affecting the individual victims and the unit as a whole. We are missing the point when the discussion is all about this faith or that faith and how one chooses to practice his or her religion. We shouldn’t have one standard of behavior for Jews, another for Muslims, and yet another for Christians. The military should be accepting of all faiths, but when your “practice” starts affecting the wellbeing and performance of others it is crossing an acceptable line.
You make it seem like the people concerned about the forced secularization of our military are the extremists. I say those emulating our late communist enemies are the extremists. Mike Weinstein isn’t just an “over-the-top” fighter for religious freedom. He is rabidly atheist with an irrational hatred of all religions and would like nothing better than religion to be banned from the Dept of Defense. He has no business advising the Pentagon on anything, least of all how to promote religious tolerance. Mainly because he doesn’t believe in religious tolerance.
When you refer to it as “forced secularization”, I interpret that as an extreme view.
I am a Jewish lay leader, I am sanctioned and endorsed by my command. I have government buildings I can use to hold services. I order religious ritual items using DoD money. There has yet to be even the smallest hint of taking any of that away from anyone in a position of authority.
I have only felt *encouraged* to practice my faith, not abandon it.
I don’t mean to say there aren’t valid arguments to be made (on both sides) about these issues, but when you talk about “forced secularization”, you lose me.
That is exactly what Mr. Weinstein wants. Any conversation he is part of is going to raise the hackles of those who support religious freedom for everyone. Suddenly the focus has turned to “proselytizing” as if there is a huge problem of people being “spiritually raped” by being exposed to non-denominational prayer.
I didn’t say the Brass was moving towards forced secularization, I said people concerned with it. I would be shocked if commands were telling their lay leaders they can’t practice or share their faith. I’m also shocked that the DOD would have any conversation with someone like Mike Weinstein who has nothing to offer but hatred and loathing.
Please reread my post. I never suggested that the DOD was engaged in this, just that anyone who has any faith what-so-ever should be concerned our leadership is even talking with a person like Weinstein.
I agree with most of your points here Joshua. It was your statement of “You make it seem like the people concerned about the forced secularization of our military are the extremists.”
I don’t deny Weinstein is an extremist. In fact the whole point of the article is to point out that both he *and* Boykin (and his ilk) are extremists and only serve to distract from the real issue.
I cannot stand with those who talk about “forced secularization” any more than I can stand with Weinstein.
Thanks.
My cousins son recently graduated from the Air Force academy. Never said one thing to me about having problems being Jewish The only problem he had was that he didn’t make the cut for fighter squadron training.