Christianity and proselytizing in the military (thread slice)

[reed11b]

Wow, very impressed by the open mindedness of the participants in this forum. After seeing both gay and female soldiers serve with distinction in combat, I must say that I am ready to recognize both serving openly in combat roles. Maintaining the "good old boy" system simply becouse the "good old boys" may act violently is not in the best interest of the military. Might help to end this ridiculous forced christianity the military is so fond of right now. It is one of my biggest hesitations on accepting a commision, since as an enlisted men I can avoid it easier then as an officer.
Reed

[CR6]

Might help to end this ridiculous forced christianity the military is so fond of right now. It is one of my biggest hesitations on accepting a commision, since as an enlisted men I can avoid it easier then as an officer.
Reed

I haven't SEEN (i.e. experienced or witnessed) any examples of Christianity being forced on anyone in 16 years of commissioned service. I'm familiar with the problems of evangelicalism at the AF Academy, but it's not as though the officer ranks require bible study participation. Truth in lending, I am a Roman Catholic; however that's between God and me. It's never affected my professional relationship with other officers or soldiers. Your experience may be quite different.

As for openly serving homosexuals, Ken White had an excellent point in this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4415&page=2), stating that as American society becomes more tolerant, so too will the Army.

[William F. Owen]

As for openly serving homosexuals, Ken White had an excellent point in this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4415&page=2), stating that as American society becomes more tolerant, so too will the Army.

Personally, and speaking from a British Army perspective, I'd like to see a little less toleration when it comes to racists, alcoholics, delinquents, and all other forms of behavioural abnormality and bigotry, however expressed.

I don't want or think that armies should be composed of high minded warrior poets, but they should aspire to hold to solid secular values, that their society prizes.

[selil]

I haven't SEEN (i.e. experienced or witnessed) any examples of Christianity being forced on anyone in 16 years of commissioned service. I'm familiar with the problems of evangelicalism at the AF Academy, but it's not as though the officer ranks require bible study participation.

Personal experience nearing on 20 years ago was just the opposite. Started in bootcamp if you didn't go to chapel on Sunday you were a dirty filthy heathen (Drill Sgts words) and forced to do scut work or PT. Made the "Idle hands are the devils workshop" saying very real.

When I got to fleet I was a married Marine (Spouse was issued prior to enlistment) and told by company commander and loudly by 1st Sgt that I and my spouse would find a church every Sunday and report such or my off base housing permission would be revoked leaving spouse and new born in a lurch.

This was true at both Pendelton and MCAGCC and was a theme of the company commander welfare visits to our off base home (usually quarterly).

[Entropy]

Like CR6 neither me nor my wife have ever exerienced any kind of proselytizing. The worst I ever saw was that one of my former wing commanders opened every staff meeting with a prayer.

[BayonetBrant]

I haven't SEEN (i.e. experienced or witnessed) any examples of Christianity being forced on anyone in 16 years of commissioned service

I saw a bunch of people run thru the wringer for being the wrong brand of Christian. You can imagine how the 2 wiccans in the unit were treated.

[CR6]

Personally, and speaking from a British Army perspective, I'd like to see a little less toleration when it comes to racists, alcoholics, delinquents, and all other forms of behavioural abnormality and bigotry, however expressed.

I don't want or think that armies should be composed of high minded warrior poets, but they should aspire to hold to solid secular values, that their society prizes.

Point well taken William in that respect for others, honesty, adherence to standards, and a strong work ethic are examples of the values that an army should require of its soldiers. That being said, those values are not incompatible with homosexuality (nor do I think you said they were). The behaviors you describe should not be tolerated, but that's not the same thing as society (and by extension the armed forces) accepting openly gay people.

[reed11b]

that's not the same thing as society (and by extension the armed forces) accepting openly gay people.
Bigotry is bigotry, so I am a little confused how being intolerant towards bigotry is not the same as accepting openly gay people.
Reed

[CR6]

Bigotry is bigotry, so I am a little confused how being intolerant towards bigotry is not the same as accepting openly gay people.
Reed

My statement was that the Army may become more tolerant as society does, whereas William stated he would like to see less tolerance for "behavioural abnormality". I read that as being opposed to openly gay soldiers serving. Perhaps I mis-understood him.

[CR6]

Perhaps I mis-understood him.

I see that I did indeed misunderstand. Apologies William.

[Stevely]

Wow, very impressed by the open mindedness of the participants in this forum. After seeing both gay and female soldiers serve with distinction in combat, I must say that I am ready to recognize both serving openly in combat roles. Maintaining the "good old boy" system simply becouse the "good old boys" may act violently is not in the best interest of the military. Might help to end this ridiculous forced christianity the military is so fond of right now. It is one of my biggest hesitations on accepting a commision, since as an enlisted men I can avoid it easier then as an officer.
Reed

I never once saw an example of "forced Christianity" during my time in service. Do you have specific examples of this widespread practice, or are you perhaps only so open-minded where it comes to sexual practices and not religious faith?

[reed11b]

Link (http://www.google.com/search?q=The+army+and+forced+christianity&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBR)
Forced may be too strong a word, but when attending services is strongly hinted to be a factor for promotion, it is not in good keeping with separation of church and state. Most chaplains and leaders realize the difference between the need for spirituality and the false belief that there style of spirituality is the only style. Most, but not all. I have seen army chaplains refuse to try and meet the spiritual needs of non-Christians (primarily Buddhist and Wiccan). I also recognize that the problem seems to be worse in support units then in combat units (the exceptions seems to be medical and aviation units). Is the problem 100% across the military? Of course not, but it is still a bigger problem then is acceptable.
Reed

[jkm_101_fso]

but when attending services is strongly hinted to be a factor for promotion

You are kidding, right?

[Cavguy]

Link (http://www.google.com/search?q=The+army+and+forced+christianity&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBR)
Forced may be too strong a word, but when attending services is strongly hinted to be a factor for promotion, it is not in good keeping with separation of church and state. Most chaplains and leaders realize the difference between the need for spirituality and the false belief that there style of spirituality is the only style. Most, but not all. I have seen army chaplains refuse to try and meet the spiritual needs of non-Christians (primarily Buddhist and Wiccan). I also recognize that the problem seems to be worse in support units then in combat units (the exceptions seems to be medical and aviation units). Is the problem 100% across the military? Of course not, but it is still a bigger problem then is acceptable.
Reed

One event does not a trend make. There are over 500,000 of us now on active duty, and a like number in the reserves. There's going to be a few zealots and nutcases. I have never seen it as a problem in any unit I have been in.

If you do have a problem, immediately go to the IG and/or EO officer. It's illegal and you have nothing to fear.

In 11 years on active duty, I have never once encountered religious discrimination due to my practice or non-practice of religion. There are some evangelicals on active duty who wear their faith on their sleeve, but the vast majority keep it to themselves.

Agree it does depend on where you are, component of the army, and your chain of command. Some small local ARNG units might be more difficult given the geographic limitations.

[reed11b]

There are over 500,000 of us now on active duty,
The "us" in your statement gives more weight to your words with me then anything else. Those I can not stand say "My" Army. Thanks for your service and input.
Reed

[Adam L]

If you do have a problem, immediately go to the IG and/or EO officer. It's illegal and you have nothing to fear.

I have no experience with this sort of action in the military, but wouldn't it be similar to any other bureaucratic agency? In my experience, filing a serious complaint or allegation can quite often end your career even if the charges are found to have merit. People are often labeled as complainers or troublemakers (If they don't just get accused of doing it to get ahead or make up for some personal deficiencies in their duties.) No one would dare to do anything overtly to stymie your progress, because they are afraid of the multi-million dollars they probably would be forced to pay in damages , but you are often ostracized and forced out. Again, I am not saying I have any knowledge or experience to say this about the military, just personal and second-hand experience with it outside of the military.

Adam L

[Jedburgh]

I have no experience with this sort of action in the military, but wouldn't it be similar to any other bureaucratic agency? In my experience, filing a serious complaint or allegation can quite often end your career even if the charges are found to have merit. People are often labeled as complainers or troublemakers (If they don't just get accused of doing it to get ahead or make up for some personal deficiencies in their duties.) No one would dare to do anything overtly to stymie your progress, because they are afraid of the multi-million dollars they probably would be forced to pay in damages , but you are often ostracized and forced out. Again, I am not saying I have any knowledge or experience to say this about the military, just personal and second-hand experience with it outside of the military.
Generally speaking - because there are always exceptions - the Army is significantly different from any private sector entity in this regard. If the complaint is legitimate and follows the appropriate channels, then substantive steps are usually taken fairly quickly to rectify the situation. In such cases, there is zero negative career impact.

On the other side of the coin, I've seen unfounded allegations made by soldiers jumping the chain cause significant - albeit temporary - disruption in a unit as the allegations are followed up. And then, even when discovered to be unfounded, there were no negative repercussions upon the complainant. In the cases that I am personally aware of, the complainant was given a transfer to a new unit "to start with a clean slate" - no negative career impact.

But I certainly understand your perspective from the private sector. I will be leaving my current position in the next few weeks - my first foray into the private sector - due to repercussions from my bringing up a business-ethics issue involving senior execs. As you stated, its nothing overtly linked that could be clearly construed as retaliation - and thus open them up to litigation - but it is insidious and malicious in manner that I never saw in 22 years in uniform.

[selil]

But I certainly understand your perspective from the private sector. I will be leaving my current position in the next few weeks - my first foray into the private sector - due to repercussions from my bringing up a business-ethics issue involving senior execs. As you stated, its nothing overtly linked that could be clearly construed as retaliation - and thus open them up to litigation - but it is insidious and malicious in manner that I never saw in 22 years in uniform.

Not an unusual response in private industry. Money makes men do evil things. Next week ask me about un-billed revenue.

[jkm_101_fso]

I have no experience with this sort of action in the military, but wouldn't it be similar to any other bureaucratic agency? In my experience, filing a serious complaint or allegation can quite often end your career even if the charges are found to have merit.

I think that is totally untrue, but it depends who is filing the complaint. Coming from a guy who has had two congressional inquiries submitted against him, I can tell you that there is no retribution or vindication AT ALL when the results are finalized. Both congressionals against me were rediculous accusations and nothing come of them. But the Army or the member of Congress failed to reprimand the Soldier(s) that submitted them for lying and making false claims.

There are legitimate times for a Soldier to go to IG or EO with a complaint. Unfortunately, there programs are abused and have turned into a welfare system for troublemakers and sloths.

Another major component of the Army welfare system is the "Commander's Open Door" policy, which I see abused constantly. I'm not sure there is a need for such policy anymore and I wish it would go away.

You would be suprised how little pride some Soldiers have in themselves and how quick they are to threaten their peers and superiors with I.G., EO, Congressionals or Commander's Open Door (Usually the CG). Certainly not the norm, but just a few can ruin it for everyone.

[Stan]

There are legitimate times for a Soldier to go to IG or EO with a complaint. Unfortunately, there programs are abused and have turned into a welfare system for troublemakers and sloths.

Another major component of the Army welfare system is the "Commander's Open Door" policy, which I see abused constantly. I'm not sure there is a need for such policy anymore and I wish it would go away.

You would be suprised how little pride some Soldiers have in themselves and how quick they are to threaten their peers and superiors with I.G., EO, Congressionals or Commander's Open Door (Usually the CG). Certainly not the norm, but just a few can ruin it for everyone.

Well put !
The CO and IG are also in the Army. Until such time as the Army can no longer control these two dudes, the outcome will be the same.

Joining other DOD elements such as DIA will only amplify the problem to the very top, and the Sierra will eventually come right back to where it started.

Since 1974 - Abused and fraught with mindless nanur nanur doo doo. Hence the reasons real problems and issues remain unresolved.

[Jedburgh]

You would be suprised how little pride some Soldiers have in themselves and how quick they are to threaten their peers and superiors with I.G., EO, Congressionals or Commander's Open Door (Usually the CG). Certainly not the norm, but just a few can ruin it for everyone.
Very dependent upon the unit. In all the places that I've served, I only saw such behavior in two - during my stint with TRADOC, where it was a damn epidemic, and while I was with a Corps-level MI unit in Germany, where it was common enough to have the NCOs and officers walking on eggs all the time.

In TRADOC, it was clearly due to the nature of the beast, dealing with trainees fresh out of basic, but still very cherry to the Army and basic having failed to truly develop that soldier pride - but having succeeded very well in training them how to work the complaint system. In Germany, there were significant problems with Bn and higher leadership that had a severe negative impact upon morale (it was also in the middle of the drawdown in Europe period).

Other than those two examples, I have never served in a unit where the statement quoted above applies.

[jkm_101_fso]

Very dependent upon the unit. In all the places that I've served, I only saw such behavior in two - during my stint with TRADOC, where it was a damn epidemic, and while I was with a Corps-level MI unit in Germany, where it was common enough to have the NCOs and officers walking on eggs all the time.

In TRADOC, it was clearly due to the nature of the beast, dealing with trainees fresh out of basic, but still very cherry to the Army and basic having failed to truly develop that soldier pride - but having succeeded very well in training them how to work the complaint system. In Germany, there were significant problems with Bn and higher leadership that had a severe negative impact upon morale (it was also in the middle of the drawdown in Europe period).

Other than those two examples, I have never served in a unit where the statement quoted above applies.


Good point, it certainly depends on the unit. Since I left "the line" for my current assignment (AC/RC, non-deployable) I have noticed a rash of issues. Certainly far more than when I was in a Fires BN, serving with people you have to combat with. Most the unit's problems are with senior NCOs and some officers. Any unit consisting of all E-7s and above is bound to have some issues. Pulling the IG, EO, Congressional and CO Open Door cards aren't common, but much more prevalent here, it seems. Frankly, I was amazed by the lack of hesistation by some to threaten it. On occasion, they would go through with it, usually with no results. If a Soldier, particularly a leader, abuses the system and threatens it constantly, you just have to call their bluff. Then you'll have the satisfaction when nothing happens and they look like fools.

[Adam L]

But I certainly understand your perspective from the private sector. I will be leaving my current position in the next few weeks - my first foray into the private sector - due to repercussions from my bringing up a business-ethics issue involving senior execs. As you stated, its nothing overtly linked that could be clearly construed as retaliation - and thus open them up to litigation - but it is insidious and malicious in manner that I never saw in 22 years in uniform.

Sorry you're having to deal with that idiocy. I know a lot of people who have had to deal with problems like that. It often seems as if you get punished for doing the right thing. :D I also want to point out that the experiences I have had were not restricted to the private sector. Actually, I've heard of problems just as often in many government and public service jobs. Don't even get me started on what its like at educational institutions these days. I'm sure Selil has many stories with regard to that! :cool:

Adam L

[BayonetBrant]

(maybe worthy of its own thread, but...)

At the moment, I'm sitting in an academic presentation about the shared military experience of the doughboys in WWI and how it shaped their worldview compared with the homefront.

The most criticized institution among WWI soldiers? The YMCA, which was in large measure the "USO" of the war in their reach and scope. They were accused of war profiteering, draft evasion, and above all, proselytizing.
Soldiers consistently complained about how YMCA secretaries would wait until the 'movie shows' were packed with soldiers wanting to escape the war for an hour or so before starting a group prayer. The YMCA would give away religious-themed cards for soldiers to write letters home, but would charge for everything else.

Seems this is not really a new phenomenon...

And now back to our regularly-scheduled debate :)

[Steve Blair]

This was something of a common complaint going back to the various temperance-type movements in the post-Civil War army (and possibly before). Interesting discussion, and might well be worth a thread of its own.

Social outlooks and "baggage" can have an important impact on our performance in Small Wars, so the discussion is (IMO) important.

[selil]

Thread was cleaved sorry if there are any lost souls.... (ack can't believe I said that) bad sammy.

[Hacksaw]

(maybe worthy of its own thread, but...)

The most criticized institution among WWI soldiers? The YMCA, which was in large measure the "USO" of the war in their reach and scope. They were accused of war profiteering, draft evasion, and above all, proselytizing.
Soldiers consistently complained about how YMCA secretaries would wait until the 'movie shows' were packed with soldiers wanting to escape the war for an hour or so before starting a group prayer. The YMCA would give away religious-themed cards for soldiers to write letters home, but would charge for everything else.



Brandt - YMCA = Young Men's Christian Association - truth in advertizing

Now back to our regularly scheduled program;)

[120mm]

And that, is the rub. If you're going to be open-minded and accepting, how can you condemn bigotry?

[BayonetBrant]

Brandt - YMCA = Young Men's Christian Association - truth in advertizing

Now back to our regularly scheduled program;)

No - I totally get it. The point is that the soldiers saw it as a service organization, and were frustrated by the way in which the preaching was injected. I'm not saying its right/wrong, just that complaints about preaching in the ranks has been around for a while.

[wm]

There we were in BCT, getting ID (AKA Dog) tags made.
They asked me "Religion?"
I said, "None."
My Drill Sergeant roared, "Everyone in this company has a religion."
I said, "No preference."
My Drill Sergeant roared, "Everyone in this company has a religious preference."
I said, "Buddhism."
My Drill Sergeant roared, "Everyone in this company has an American religion."
I said, "Methodist."
My Drill Sergeant smiled.

[Van]

To quote my father;

"Episcopalian. It doesn't interfere with your politics or religion."

[marct]

I saw a bunch of people run thru the wringer for being the wrong brand of Christian. You can imagine how the 2 wiccans in the unit were treated.

I've heard of that happening to a Wiccan I knew who was in the USAF and I have heard of other instances as well. On the flip side, there is a touch of a persecution complex inherent in the symbology of most of the Wican traditions in the US.


I have seen army chaplains refuse to try and meet the spiritual needs of non-Christians (primarily Buddhist and Wiccan).

Reed, just a quick note here, the vast majority of Arm chaplains are incapable of performing basic Wiccan rituals (depending on tradition, you need both a man and a women, and they both have to be at least 1st degree initiates; usually 2nd or 3rd in the US traditions and it does vary from trad line to trad line). I certainly couldn't fault a Christian priest or minister for refusing to be involved in any Wiccan ritual either. However, if by "meet the spiritual needs" you mean something like counselling in a non-ritual setting, that would strike me as being against their priesthood oaths.

[marct]

Seems this is not really a new phenomenon...

Buncha amatoors :D! Take a look at the armies and chaplains in the 30 years war, especially the Catholic armies under the Ferdinand II of Austria - pros, real pros.

[Tom Odom]

Buncha amatoors :D! Take a look at the armies and chaplains in the 30 years war, especially the Catholic armies under the Ferdinand II of Austria - pros, real pros.

I always love the scene in the Four Muskeeters when the priests are blessing the cannons as they fire on the French Hugenot infidels :D

I had a retired Jesuit priest as my main French instructor at DLI--those pros are still pros

Tom

[marct]

I had a retired Jesuit priest as my main French instructor at DLI--those pros are still pros

Oh, yeah! The Black Pope probably had the finest intel network with the best field operative for a couple of hundred years.

Marc

[reed11b]

I certainly couldn't fault a Christian priest or minister for refusing to be involved in any Wiccan ritual either. However, if by "meet the spiritual needs" you mean something like counselling in a non-ritual setting, that would strike me as being against their priesthood oaths.

I meant refusing to provide space or work w/ soldiers requests to meet spiritual needs. My chaplain on deployment worked w/ the two Buddhists in the unit by providing time and a quite space for there meditation and linked the soldiers together so they could have spiritual conversation. I think that's all you can ask for, but I think it IS fair to ask for that. A call to prayer at a unit function referring to God is fairly safe since most religions have a God. Asking for us to take Jesus into our hearts at a unit function is not, since Jesus is part of the Christian faith only. Being told to make sure my soldiers were ready for chapel service but not asking them if they want to go is not ok. Fairly mild cases sited, and my experiences have been mostly positive, but pretending that there is NO problem is not likely to be productive. Being aware and maintaining or current forward progress is the way to go in my book, for what it's worth.
Reed
P.S. my tags say Buddhist, but I tend to let spiritualty slide on deployment, I was not one of the two sited above.

[BayonetBrant]

I do want to say that every military chaplain I've ever met has been a fantastic person - and I grew up in the Army going to mass every week.

The problems I saw were with a unit from Aberdeen about 12 years ago, and with a SCARNG unit in 2000-2001.

[Adam L]

Reed, just a quick note here, the vast majority of Arm chaplains are incapable of performing basic Wiccan rituals (depending on tradition, you need both a man and a women, and they both have to be at least 1st degree initiates; usually 2nd or 3rd in the US traditions and it does vary from trad line to trad line). I certainly couldn't fault a Christian priest or minister for refusing to be involved in any Wiccan ritual either. However, if by "meet the spiritual needs" you mean something like counselling in a non-ritual setting, that would strike me as being against their priesthood oaths.

This I think brings up a few important questions. First of all, what exactly are the duties of a chaplain. Second, are any of them contradictory. Third, is there, and if so when, a conflict of interest for chaplains.

Adam L

[reed11b]

One of the big conflicts of interest for Army Chaplains that I run into is that they are often tasked w/ MH counseling. This (theoretically) is supposed to be the domain of Army behavioral health. However two factors affect this. One, there are far more chaplains then there are therapists in the Army. Two, Chaplains deploy for the length of the deployment w/ the unit, Doctorate level therapists do not. Many Chaplains are actually very skilled at counseling in a behavioral health capacity and some of them appear to be better trained then the Army therapists. Some however have had almost no training in behavioral health and/or push spiritual solutions even when they are not called for. I would state the weakness in this case is with the Army Behavioral health and Chaplains have done mostly a bang-up job helping to fill in the cracks. Some of the best re-integration briefings I have seen have been made by Army Chaplains.
Reed