0 Votes
God before Country in the Military
How the Defense Department Puts God Before Country
Is it OK for our military leaders to say that they put God before their Country.
Under God is nominally included in their oath but may be optional;.
The problem now is “which God?”.
Many of us would have some concern if it was Allah.
Can we prevent that? Should we?
How do we feel about senior officers using their position for evangelizing?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Iran's Science - Real or Fake?, by VnutZ 3 months ago
- Assassination Rules, by VnutZ 4 months ago
- Boosting US Cyber Security?, by VnutZ 4 months ago
- No Easy Day, by VnutZ 9 months ago
This article was edited after publication by the author on 21 Jan 2010.
View changes.
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Exactly by VnutZ
Many of us would have some concern if it was Allah.
I always find it funny that people within the particular faith will think it’s no big deal and wonder why the others are so upset. But your point is exactly right, all of a sudden they get upset if they would have to say that instead. They never “get it” until their own comfort zone is upset.
That's why I dislike it by scottb
Under God is nominally included in their oath but may be optional
There’s a really fundamental problem in there, somewhere.
The Supreme Court ruled that phrases like “under god” in the pledge, and “in god we trust” on the money, are acceptable only because they somehow don’t represent religious invocations. They’re “ceremonial”—not to be construed as meaning the Christian god, or any specific god, or even necessarily any deity whatsoever. In other words, it’s ok because we don’t really mean it.
The opinions were pretty clear that, if they had been meant as something more than mere ceremonial phrasing, then they would be an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment.
But it’s stuff like this that gives the lie to the justice’s words. That (optional) “so help me god” at the end of the soldier’s oath is, officially, meaningless, yet people point to it as if it had some real meaning.
There’s an ongoing scandal involving a company that manufactures rifle sights for the military putting references to bible verses next to the serial numbers. American soldiers in Iraq carrying weapons with bible verses engraved on them—it’s an outrage to anyone with even a little bit of common sense.
Yet, one military commander I saw interviewed likened it to “in god we trust”. He wasn’t saying, “look, it’s just irrelevant ceremonial fluff”, like the Supreme Court’s official position ruled, he was asserting that, why, yes we are a Christian army putting down the infidels.
I think we’d be better served by eliminating the chaplains’ corps from the military entirely. The clergy can get to the troops the same way that reporters get there—on their own company’s dime. Ban all proselytizing on military bases worldwide, including here in the US. Soldiers who want gods can go off base to find them.
Separation of Church and State by Jackson
Is it OK for our military leaders to say that they put God before their Country.
This is sticky for me. I guess they can say it, but their decisions had at the very least defend the safety of the country, first. I am pretty sure that an omnipotent God can take care of Himself. I don’t want some crackpot general receiving revelations that he has to destroy all non-Christians (which generally includes all Christian sects that are different from his) and then using the military to further that goal.
Under God is nominally included in their oath but may be optional. The problem now is “which God?”. Many of us would have some concern if it was Allah.
This is one of the ridiculous aspects of religion in politics in a diverse country. In America, at least as far as my experience, God = Christan God and everyone knows it, even though it’s argued that it is vague enough to cover “other” deities. My feeling is it should be ripped out of oaths entirely. I am more religious than I am patriotic, but I also feel that when I give my word about something, that becomes paramount. My name and reputation is weighty enough for me to fulfill agreements without invoking a deity just for kicks. This under God business (in government oaths, pledges, etc) is silly and I don’t see how it adds anything to the country. I have always felt that religion should be private and it annoys me when people try to make their religion public policy. I think people fail to realize that only works for you as long as your specific flavor of religion is the one calling the shots. It pretty much blows for everyone else.
Can we prevent that? Should we?
In our country, in our society, I don’t think we can prevent that (meaning invocation of deity in oaths). If you mean specifically invoking Allah, I don’t see how it is worse than invoking Jehovah or Zeus or Odin. There are crazies in every religion, even if the most popular target right now is Islam. Ireland was happy to destroy itself happily in the name of Christ, they didn’t need the evil Allah (which according to Muslims is the same as the “Heavenly Father” that Jesus prays to).
In an ideal world, I think secularizing everything would be great. But this is not an ideal world and people are unable to make rational decisions about religion because it requires you to choose irrationality to take it seriously. And right now as a country we can’t even make rational decisions about spending or healthcare or even freaking campaign finance. I don’t have much hope for change.
How do we feel about senior officers using their position for evangelizing?
Depends how they do it, to me. If they are just open about what they believe and willing to discuss it with people who express a desire to hear it, fine, but don’t make a meal of the discussion on company time. As far as active proselytizing, I think that is a misuse of authority/position. People shouldn’t have to hear about that crap while trying to get their jobs done.
On turning molehills into mountains by mikeforbes
So let me get this straight: a half dozen or so officers out of the 23,000+ people that work in the Pentagon allow themselves, stupidly, to be interviewed for a promotional video while in uniform. Then a oxymoronically-named “religious freedom” organization loses their shit over it and comes out with a over-sensationalized story about it on Air America. The DoD IG hears about it, and conducts an investigation of the wayward officers’ actions. The IG recommends that they be disciplined and/or corrected.
HOW IS THIS A CRISIS??? Mistake happened > Investigation > Mistake admitted and corrected > Closed. Am I missing something?
Also, from what I understand, this was an internal promotional video for this “Christian Embassy” organization, NOT something to be published DoD-wide to say “Hey you, soldier/sailor: convert to Christianity!!” Not that it makes a difference from the DoD ethics regulations point of view—endorsing any outside organization in uniform is frowned upon—but I don’t see how this video would have had any influence on any member of the DoD outside of the membership of the organization itself.
To characterize the subjects as “senior leaders” in DoD is a tad disingenuous also—you can’t swing a dead cat at the Pentagon without hitting a 1- or 2-star general. Colonels make the coffee there, these guys were middle management at best.
Anyway, my point is that the claim that this is evidence of some undue Christian influence in DoD, and that such influence would have ANY effect on policy decisions or official actions of DoD leadership is bullshit. The IG investigated and slapped it down!! If there was some religious conspiracy, wouldn’t “they” have covered it up?? Madness.
Also, a side note:
Many of us would have some concern if it was Allah.
I think we all would, but for different reasons. I am not an Islamophobe by any stretch, but I would wonder why that was the only Arabic word in an oath otherwise recited entirely in English. _(Note to those who don’t get it: “Allah” – الله is simply “God” in Arabic. It’s not a different god, it’s referring to the same one as Christians and Jews, just in a different language.)
M*A*A*F by Fred.GreenMI
There is an organization that is working to tackle many of the issues raised here. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (M*A*A*F) at www.maaf.info assists military members facing religious discrimination.
Lest there be any doubt – Yes, there has been a terrible resurgence of Christian Evangelism in the U.S. military. Some commanders and chaplains feel free to force soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines to attend religious ceremonies so they can proselytize to them.
Quite a mountain of a problem by dday76
Two clarifications:
The god part of the oath is optional – MAAF FAQ – Opting out requires a person to ‘out’ themselves to their superiors, which can be hazardous. If even the perception of discrimination is there, service members may be forced to adopt their leader’s religious oath. But it is technically optional.
“Atheist” whether you call it a religion or not, is included as a special ‘religious’ group that must be tracked and supported by the military chaplaincy for purposes of morale, welfare, and command climate. Failing to include atheists and other secular Americans is creates a rift in the military by excluding large swaths of the population. – MAAF Chaplain Outreach Program
All that having been said, please see below 2 organizations working to free the military from the clutches of Dominionist Evangelical Christians and Two organizations that show very clearly that these forces exist and are actively and very successfully co-opting our military as a venue for spreading their personal religious beliefs.
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers – (with a longer list of ongoing problems)
Campus Crusade Military Ministry
Officers’ Christian Fellowship
This is a huge issue and one that needs a lot of focus and support from the nontheist community, and from Americans who would rather their military supported America rather than Jesusland.
Jason
MAAF
nerdy? by milhous
Wow, this is a raging debate!
It seems like there are a ton of anons, Tracy, and every now and then Brandon versus some “non-believers” (Occams, scottb, wyldeling, jackson, et al). The non-believers gang up to give nerd-its for comments that aren’t really all that nerdy if you ask me. Seems pretty lame. What’s wrong with someone believing in something? You crazy “scientists” could be termed bigots for all your slandering of a belief.
Just my casual observance…..
I am curious tho.... by Anonymous
How can we, as a nation, say that we support the freedoms and rights of people everywhere, when we are taking away those freedoms and rights from our own citizens here at home? Just because you do not like it, or disagree with a persons fundamental beliefs, you think it is ok to take that persons rights and personal freedoms away? We have become a nation of hypocrites, liars and thieves! Full of blasphemy, puffed up with self-importance. Shame on us!