I saw the caption “Pentagon Taps Anti-Christian Extremist for Religious Tolerance Policy” while scanning through headlines this week. Then I read the article. It is an outrage.
Here’s the gist: Mikey Weinstein is going to consult with the Pentagon on religious policies, including a policy for court-martialing military chaplains who share the gospel during spiritual counseling of American troops. Mikey Wienstein who founded the mis-named Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Mikey Weinstein who describes our military chaplains this way:
They are “fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny… [on a] path of racism, bigotry, and prejudice…who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates.”
The Pentagon is asking for this guy’s advice on their policy for religious tolerance.
Tolerance: (noun) a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
Yes. Right. That very “Tolerance”. NOT the one that means spewing vile hatred and being entirely disrespectful toward those with whom you differ in world view. There are innumerable salacious quotes that I could have lifted from this one Huffington Post piece sited above. In this Washington Post piece, Weinstein also lists “proselytizing” alongside sexual assault within the military as a threat to our national security.
So, let us subject ourselves to some religious assault together, shall we? I am about to share a story so rife with the horrors of proselytizing you will possibly need therapy when we are through. You have been warned.
I have a friend named Dave. Dave has been sent to the Middle East for a year as a military chaplain. He writes a monthly newsletter to keep the families of his soldiers updated on the happenings in that far-away warzone. Here is what this “pitiable unconstitutional carpetbagger” (as Weinstein would call him) wrote in his November letter home:
One of the highlights of November was developing a Thanksgiving Service for all of the Soldiers and Marines stationed here. I provided a time during the service where attendees were invited to come and share with the crowd what they had to be thankful for as they helped me build a “Thanksgiving Tree” (Thanks Hillside Kids!)…I will never forget watching many of these big strong Soldiers/Marines gently cry as they talked about their family or friends they had lost in the
Dave leading chapel
war. One young man had recently lost his brother to an improvised explosive device (IED) in Afghanistan and shared his thankfulness for having had a brother who had impacted him in such a meaningful way. I could really feel the Holy Spirit moving during the service to touch these tender hearts.
An assortment of Dave’s prayer requests from several letters:
- Please continue to pray for our families back home…we sure miss them! Please especially pray for strength as we are apart during the Christmas season. Pray for the marriages and children of our Soldiers while we are away.
- Most of all I want to see a spirit of joy, community, fellowship and love erupt as people grow in their Christian faith.
- Pray that the turmoil in this region will be contained and that peace will reign.
- Pray that I’m able to identify and help any Soldier/Marine struggling with depression or mental health concerns.
- Pray for our Soldiers who are spread throughout the region…I am doing my best to travel to them for ministry support and counseling.
- Please pray I am able to develop a plan to provide humanitarian support or tangible acts of service to the orphans or other needy in this region. I’ve been meeting and planting seeds for this dream to come to fruition but need the Lord to open the right door in this Muslim nation.
Here are a few remarks from Dave describing his interactions with non-Christian soldiers. (What Weinstein would decry as “spiritual rape.”)
He asks that those back home would “pray for an atheist that I’ve been working with each day as I gently share the Christian faith. I’m thankful he is coming to “discuss” faith…pray for his heart to open to the nudging of the Holy Spirit.” (I am struck here that this atheist actually COMES TO DAVE to be spiritually assaulted each day. Albeit “gently”.)
Dave acknowledges that “Many of these Soldiers are unlikely to become regular chapel attendees (although I pray for each of them to come to Jesus) but all of them have a deep desire to have a pastor. It is a strong connection that is formed in military ministry. I think it is a heart cry of humans everywhere…”
Now that’s what I’d call a “rabidly intolerant agitator.”
Weinstein has the right say whatever he likes about people of faith. He has a personal right to foam at the mouth and seek to tear down Christianity. But by appointing him, our government is ENDORSING intolerance.
I wonder, (not really, but I want you to) if he had said these things about Allah would he still be considered?
askthe"Bigot" 
I just followed the links and read his piece in the Huffington Post. Wow! It was so full of rage he has difficulty even staying on task. I would write him off as “unbalanced ranter”. How on earth did he get the nod as a consultant?!
It’s almost comical. After reading his rant, I looked over some of Dave’s newsletters and they were an oasis of tranquility. The contrast was stark.
I wonder if Obama got the memo that the Korean War chaplain he honored with a posthumous Medal of Honor last month must have been a ‘monster’?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/12/us-usa-medalofhonor-idUSBRE93B0XK20130412
I would share this post with my uncle, a retired Army chaplain, but I fear it might give him a heart-attack
That’s a great article, William. I remember hearing NPR cover that story too. The Chaplain who received the medal of honor sounds like Dave. This is what he wrote to me in a follow-up email:
“My goal is to walk like Jesus each day and LOVE my Troops…be their pastor, train with them, suffer with them, eat with them, sleep in big tents with them, run with them, deploy with them, be their pastor~!~!”
Askthebigot,
If you separate religion from politics and try to think about this as an American, is there not anything about what is happening that bothers you besides the fact that Mr. Weinstein is trying to get chaplains to stop trying to convert while serving in the military? (I think I read in one of your links that he was able to get an atheist to remove a bumper sticker, too)
What if one of your loved ones was serving in the armed services and their chaplain was Islamic and tried to convert your loved one? Don’t you think that would add extra stress to an already stressful situation? Providing prayer when asked for and spiritual guidance when asked for is a chaplain’s duty; it is not to convert anyone to Christ through proselytizing. It is not just the atheists that don’t like this; neither do Jews, and I imagine even some Christians of different faiths might not take too kindly to someone of a more fundamental nature preaching “their” interpretation of scripture.
It is my understanding that a chaplain is to assist military of “all faiths” and be a good listener. One thing I read said that a chaplain is a “chaplain to all, pastor to some”. I also read somewhere that less than 5% of enlisted personnel call themselves Southern Baptist, Pentecostal or evangelical, but 33% of chaplains fall into those three groups. And while this may seem like a “mission field” windfall for these chaplains, it flies in the face of our constitution.
Just a different point of view., 🙂
After Dave read my blog post, he wrote:
“In seven years of military ministry I have never had to compromise my faith in Christ in order to serve as a chaplain. I serve in a non-Christian and pluralistic setting and always pray for wisdom as I interact on a daily basis with Soldiers. I suppose some have overstepped and have put pressure on Soldiers to attend church or find faith…those are few and far between. We come from a variety of faith backgrounds…we have 3 Catholic Priest chaplains serving here with me now, 1 7th Day Adventist, 1 Jewish Rabbi, 1 Mormon, 1 Anglican, 1 Pentecostal…and others like myself who are Evangelical Christians…we have different faith traditions but LOVE our Soldiers and LOVE each other….”
And in answer to a previous comment, I’m ok with you referring to me as “Askthebigot” because I haven’t really given any other options. Maybe I should get a pen name… 🙂
Mainly I’m bothered by the fact that one of the most egregious examples of “intolerance” can be found in a man that will be speaking to top brass about what it means to be tolerant.
I don’t think “trying to convert,” in this case, implies any kind of coercion. That man comes to the pastor with questions and concerns, and the pastor tells him what he knows. Nobody is ramming anything down anybody.
“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying ‘Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!’ But Peter and the other apostles answered and said, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:27-29).'”
Should Christians minister to and serve all? Absolutely. Should they refrain from sharing the gospel even if it is outlawed and forbidden with the threat of severe punishment for disobedience? No, absolutely not. The command to preach the Good News comes from a transcendentally higher ranking authority than anyone the Pentagon has to offer… God Himself.
“If they persecuted Me… they will persecute you also.” ~ Jesus
There is a distinction between coercion and simply sharing what God is doing in your life. And certainly a distinction between “forcing your views on others” and answering spiritual questions honetly. While there may have been isolated incidence of compulsion to join in on religious activities, that is not the norm. Depending on how one interprets the policy, “proselytizing” may mean simply sharing your own views and opinions.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith
Of course they should. But they should not do it in the government’s armed services. Jesus did not do this.
Cindy, that’s a false assertion. Jesus wasn’t in the armed forces, and was sent to the Jews primarily, so of course we don’t see Him converting then-current soldiers (nearly all of whom were Gentiles). He went first to the Jews and after their rejection His word was taken to the Gentiles. We only have record of a few interactions with Gentiles anywhere in Scripture, though John makes it clear that what is in the Gospels is by no means even the smallest part of what He did. That doesn’t mean that the Gospel wasn’t intended for Gentiles. Just that He, with His limited time and by virtue of being in a body limited to one place, was devoted mostly to His chosen people. You cannot extrapolate from that to say He would never have done so if God had given Him a different directive, when it is clear that He spoke truth to all He came into contact with, wherever He was, even if that interaction was frowned upon by the legal and religious authorities.
Ms. Askme (cause I just can’t call you a bigot) I was horrified when I read this. I did a short stint in China some time back – it was during the time when Falun Gong was being forcibly put down. In China, while you cannot openly proselytize in public, you can freely respond to any questions asked you. The vague wording of the policies in question and the way our courts lean in general make it clear that responding to questions could easily be considered unlawful activity. Which means for once China would have the march on us in freedom of speech. That boggles my mind.
Water Rat, thanks so much for your comments.
“Askme” is perfect. Gonna change my gravitar.
Water Rat,
I did not mean to imply that Jesus did not intend to reach Gentiles with the gospel. I was saying he didn’t try to go through the Roman military to get to the Jews. In fact, he clearly wanted to be outside of either Roman politics or the politics of the Pharisees and Sadducees. That is my take on this as a Christian.
As an American, I do not want Christians paid by the US military to try and convert others to Christianity. It is unconstitutional in my opinion and it is unsavory. Further, it makes me uncomfortable that some other faith could be forced on me. Some radical muslims believe they are supposed to either convert non-believers or kill them. I don’t want that interpretation of any religion to have a foothold in the American armed services. Therefore, I am happy to leave evangelism to the private sector.
Not sure I’m grasping the logic (I’ve been known to be slow). Are you saying because Jesus never joined the army, He forfeits His authority as Lord?
Mtsweat,
I assume you are being sarcastically pithy, but, No, I am not saying that. Nothing I say or do can make Jesus give up His authority as Lord. Neither do I believe I implied that.
But this argument sounds familiar. Maybe you will recognize it. A woman chooses to work for a private Catholic organization. They do not want to pay for her abortion because under the Constitution they should not be forced to cover this procedure as it goes against their religion. This upsets the young woman even though she “chose” to work for a religious organization and new their policies; regardless of her own personal beliefs and convictions. She should get a different job.
The same holds true for a Christian chaplain serving in the armed services. When you join the armed services, you agree to follow their rules which may go against your religious principles or beliefs. If you can’t live with that, get a different job. It really isn’t that hard.
My greater point is this. I am 100% convinced that Jesus, if he had come today instead of 2000 years ago, would not choose to join the army and make that his way to get his message to the rest of the world. And I am not being sarcastic or anything that would disrespect Jesus who is MY Lord and my example of how to live.
Nope, no sarcasm meant, I’m really that slow. Only trying to make the point that if Christians refrain from entering all areas where they may find persecution awaiting them, then there is no place to take the gospel. Peter could have made the argument, “The Jews don’t allow Christians in Jerusalem.” Paul could have said the same for most of his missionary journeys. There are countless missionaries in Asia and Africa alike today who aren’t there because the governments of these nations requested they come. Quite the contrary, if they are found out they will suffer violent persecution for teaching the gospel.
Every Christian is called to be a living testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ wherever they are, including serving in the armed forces. How sad to think of soldiers on a battlefield without the only real message of hope. “God became Man, and died on a cross for the sins of His people.”
Sorry if you feel I’m being sarcastic. I’m only trying to understand why any Christian would want there to be any place, anywhere, that the good news of Jesus isn’t being proclaimed from the rafters.
Mtsweat,
This controversy is, more than anything, a political issue but it is being caused by choices made by religious leaders/pastors/shepherds.
I don’t know how to explain it any better why a Christian can believe that the way the gospel is delivered matters. What do you think Jesus was teaching the 5000 on that hillside that led so many of them to stay so long past their dinner and with no easy way to feed themselves? Did they stay because they willingly came to see Jesus or because Jesus crashed their party and forced them to listen to His message? I am reminded of when I was a young girl in church and the preacher would have the organist play “Just As I Am” over, and over, and over. “Head bowed, eyes closed” we would stay that way, stomachs rumbling, organist playing, nerves on edge, until someone made their way to the front of that sanctuary to give their life to Jesus; even if it meant we were there until 12:45. It truly was like being held hostage.
But how are Christians to act? We are to be humble. We are to be considerate of our host. We are not to take a seat of honor, even if we can. We are to submit to authority. Pushing the envelope of the chaplain’s historical role in the military is doing the opposite of these things. Trying to label the reactions of service personnel offended by this behavior as persecution is disingenuous and is a political ploy.
The all or nothing argument is not very persuasive. In all those other countries you mentioned, you must, if you wish to be a missionary, do so within the parameters of the laws of that country. Sure, there are risks. But no missionary I know (and I know a few) takes a confrontational stance with the authorities of the country they are entering. They are not like, “I am a Christian. I have been instructed by God, Himself, to preach the gospel from the rafters. Now, move aside!”
In the United States we are a country where you have freedom of religion and freedom from religion. No religion can be forced upon you, and the government is not to favor one religion over any other. You either embrace that or you reject it, I guess. I embrace that. And I don’t think it is unbiblical to do so.
Here is another blogger who has said much of what I was trying to say, but much more eloquently:
http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/the-sky-is-falling-overreactions-and-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-916
🙂
A sign of the times. They will not accept even the kindest way in which we tell the truth.
He said, If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. John 18 & 19
Sorry my previous comment, it was John 15:18,19.
My mistake :-). Baby was crying 🙂
Thanks for that verse, Yolanda. I hate being hated. In many areas of my life, I can feel myself shying away from taking hard scripture-directed action because of the possible disapproval of others. I have to focus on pleasing Christ, and not others. Very difficult if you are a people-pleaser.
I think that the tricky part for me is to make sure that if I am “hated” it is because people are seeing Jesus in me, and rejecting that, not because I am placing additional stumbling blocks in their path.
https://askthebigot.com/2012/10/15/stumblingblock/
I feel a new post coming on… 😉
It’s interesting – I just started reading a book about the priest/chaplain who recently was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery in the Korean War. Of course, my month-of-May-addled brain can’t recall the chaplain’s name, but it’s clear just from reading the first couple of chapters how much this man of God meant to those with whom he served – Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim (yes, Turkish Muslims honored him after his death in the POW camp…). My brother, a Gulf War veteran, has given up his faith entirely – in part due to his lingering issues with regard to the war. I wish he’d had a strong, Godly shoulder to lean on during and after his service there – Jewish, Christian, Muslim… No doubt, being a military chaplain requires no small amount of diplomacy with regard to members of other faiths. But how ridiculous that someone who so clearly has an agenda would be selected to work for the Pentagon to give advice on “tolerance”.
ATB (is that OK?),
When I first read your blog post, I do what I always do – I went and researched the story. I was surprised by my Google results on this one.
One of my biggest pet peeves with the Internet Search Engines is that they never give you what you are looking for (at least not up front). I usually get everything about the myriad of different ways the current controversy is being discussed today (i.e., not historic information). This time, I found a number of articles dating back to the early 2000s written by armed services personnel or from their point-of-view through interviews which discussed how upset many service personnel were that they were having the gospel forced on them.
All I could think was that I had not heard this before. But I tried to be objective. I was ready to be as angry as you were if this was just another malcontent ready to try and get a cross removed from a federal park or something similar (you know the stories). Those people have way too much time on their hands and just want to stir up a stink (my opinion). But this really seemed like it might be something with more teeth (despite your friend’s personal experience).
My husband and I use computers in our business. He is responsible for maintaining them and taking care of computer software problems (I don’t have time and I don’t like it and he is better at it). The problem is that he doesn’t really like this job either. So, if I come to him and I say, the server is running slow or this program keeps hanging up, he’ll say, “well, I haven’t had that problem.” What he is really saying is, “I don’t want to be bothered with this right now, therefore, there is no problem,” or “it isn’t affecting me negatively, therefore, there is no problem.” I hate to admit this, but I am always ecstatic when my problem finally makes its way onto his computer because it is then an A-Number 1 priority! And, finally, my problem gets fixed, too.
I think this is how we sometimes treat other people’s experiences; especially when the people may be in a minority group. Plus, we usually see things from our own world view. It makes us uncomfortable to think that as Christians we might actually be causing people to be stressed, anxious or angry because we are “doing what Jesus told us to do”. I would argue, of course, that Jesus didn’t tell us to use our positions in the government to preach the gospel, but I know that many disagree. It is a good thing we have the Constitution.
Here is just one link I came across that dates back to 2005: http://www.dotandcalm.com/calm-archive/index/t-10853.html (there are a bunch of different links at the bottom of the article; I haven’t read them all. My point, really, is that this is not new and is not President Obama’s war any more than I hope it wasn’t swept under the rug by President Bush and his administration).
Vis-a-vis e-nomenclature, I’ve always just called AskMe (the blogger previously known as Prince…er, AsktheBigot) as B.
As for the entire intolerance thing and article about Mikey Weinstein, it is of course abhorrent, though less aberrant than it used to be, that a person who gives way to their bias in the way that Mr Weinstein is reported to have should continue to be accepted in such a role. However – I mentioned aberrant – this is what David Robertson wrote in one of his open letters to Richard Dawkins:
“I am grateful to you for your somewhat amusing and sad expose of the Danish cartoons fiasco…. And I also deplore the absolute cowardice of the press who refused to publish the cartoons out of ‘respect’ and ‘sympathy’ for the offence Muslims suffered. You and I know the real reason they did not publish was nothing to do with respect and everything to do with fear. ‘The Independent newspaper, for example, had no difficulty in publishing the most blasphemous attack upon the Christian god but would not publish those cartoons…. The British media know that there is a core difference between Islam and Christianity: while there may be a few Christians who threaten boycotts or pickets, there are none who are going to seek to kill those who blaspheme our God, whereas they know full well that any derogatory mention of Mohammed will result in serious death threats and violence.”
(From ‘The Dawkins Letters: challenging atheist myths’, pages 38-39)
Vis-a-vis e-nomenclature, I’ve always just called AskMe (the blogger previously known as Prince…er, AsktheBigot) as B.
As for the entire intolerance thing and article about Mikey Weinstein, it is of course abhorrent, though less aberrant than it used to be, that a person who gives way to their bias in the way that Mr Weinstein is reported to have should continue to be accepted in such a role. However – I mentioned aberrant – this is what David Robertson wrote in one of his open letters to Richard Dawkins:
“I am grateful to you for your somewhat amusing and sad expose of the Danish cartoons fiasco…. And I also deplore the absolute cowardice of the press who refused to publish the cartoons out of ‘respect’ and ‘sympathy’ for the offence Muslims suffered. You and I know the real reason they did not publish was nothing to do with respect and everything to do with fear. ‘The Independent newspaper, for example, had no difficulty in publishing the most blasphemous attack upon the Christian god but would not publish those cartoons…. The British media know that there is a core difference between Islam and Christianity: while there may be a few Christians who threaten boycotts or pickets, there are none who are going to seek to kill those who blaspheme our God, whereas they know full well that any derogatory mention of Mohammed will result in serious death threats and violence.”
(From ‘The Dawkins Letters: challenging atheist myths’, pages 38-39)
Hi Troy. Cannot tell you what a delight it is to see you on here. Thanks, as always for your comments. “B” is fine, of course- my friends get to call me whatever they like. 😉
Cindy0803
If I’ve come across as arrogant, I apologize. I assure you I’m aware I have no right to boastfulness but in the cross. In reality, I’m grateful for your thoughts and the liberty we have to engage in such talk. Also, many thanks to the author for putting forth an article that stimulates thought and emotion.
It’s interesting that you bring the feeding of the 5g into the conversation. By all means, Jesus’ charisma, love, and passion drew crowds. If memory serves me, this number was a count of the men, meaning the number was possibly 3 to 4 times as large. These people loved His teaching and provsion. That will soon change. In just a hand full of verses (John 8), these very same people who seem glued to Him, will abandon Him as fast as they can run. The reason is He will proclaim His exclusivity as being the only path to life, “You must eat My flesh and drink My blood.”
This is why I so strongly oppose allowing there to be any place where the gospel cannot be heard. Our great men and women who strive to secure our freedom need the good news of Jesus Christ no less than everyone else. After all of the crowds had left Jesus, He turned to His closest friends and asked, “Are you going to leave Me too?” They respond to the question with the words, “Where else would we go? You alone have the words of life.”
If a fellow soldier is not allowed to share this good news as a battle takes place in Afghanistan, then how will these words of life be heard?
Equally urgent though is this fact. This is not an end of the conversation. It’s a path of less resistance for the enemy of the cross. If the gospel is made illegal within the ranks of the armed forces, the enemy will not be content. For you see, the ultimate goal will be to silence the name of Jesus entirely. The military is just a footstool.
If that footstool holds, the pulpits of our nation are in sight. Jesus wants His live-giving message heard in every crack and crevice of this world… whether that be in the next door neighbor’s yard, the small village of Diouloulou, or a barracks housing U.S. soldiers.
Mtsweat,
No hard feelings. I really enjoy Askme’s blog, too. And that is a true testament to her gentle spirit (even when she is passionate about something) because I tend to usually be on the outside looking in.
As for the 5,000 (men, yes. As a woman, I try not to dwell on the fact that we were an afterthought ), the scripture says “many” of the disciples that were following him (not the 12) departed Him. I presume there were some who did not. And Jesus had said earlier in this chapter that “God” does the calling. Sometimes Christians are so “on fire” that they miss the subtleties.
I think that there is a way to preach the gospel, or at least present Christ’s message of love, when in mixed company that might actually keep them engaged and cause them to start asking the deeper questions without putting undue pressure or stress on them. I have a pastor friend who puts a post-it note on his computer (can’t remember what it says) so when he is at a coffee shop or other public venue, it causes people to stop and ask him questions. I compare this to the young man this past week who stood on his college campus holding signs telling women they deserved rape if they wore shorts, etc. and yelled very angry and hurtful words at women as they were trying to get to their classes.
But as to the conflict with the Chaplains (and other military leaders), I don’t think that most people (or the government) want Christians, in general, to not be able to talk about Jesus in the armed services. In fact, Chaplains can talk about Jesus, but it has to be done in the proper context (militarily speaking); there are actual guidelines/rules as I understand it. Yes, I know that the fact that these men and women are in the unique position to have their lives cut short at any moment, and that lends an overwhelming urgency to share the unabridged version of the Gospel, but there must be restraint for the sake of ALL soldiers be they Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Atheists, Agnostics, Wiccans, etc.
Hi Cindy,
I noted in your last post you said, “As for the 5,000 (men, yes. As a woman, I try not to dwell on the fact that we were an afterthought ), the scripture says “many” of the disciples that were following him (not the 12) departed Him.”
I suppose there is more melancholia than tongue-in-cheek about your remark. It is sad how any one group gets marginalised because they’re different to the ruling class. Even only a difference in names or eye colour will do it, even though everything else is the same.
The Church historically is far from perfect in this regard; although it’s interesting to note how highly regarded the Bible, and the Gospel writers, regard women – when the Bible is being descriptive, with positive implications. Genesis says that men and women are both in the image of God, and that women and men are complementary, not that men are complete and that women are an afterthought. In Judges, Deborah was bolder than Barak.
Apart from John, the disciples at the crucifixion were women. The others were at a distance, watching. Mary of Magdala and two other women were the first witnesses – and apostles to the apostles – of Jesus’ resurrection. At a time when women, children, slaves or shepherds were not considered to be reliable witnesses in a Jewish court of law, the prominence of women in regard to bearing testimony to the central event of Christianity is remarkable.
Would go on, but my girfriend is calling me to go. 😉
Good post. To answer your question, no, he would not have been appointed to that position if he had made those remarks targeting Muslims.
Churches nor churchmen are any more than people struggling for difficult goals. They are in that, prone to excess, often enough, bloody excess if one examines history. Government wants subservience from them, not competition. So we have Congressional chaplains instructed to pray without mentioning Christ and threats of court martial for military chaplains unwilling to marry gays. And outright attacks via such as Obamacare’s demand that religiously owned institutions provide abortion, birth control, etc. Government is extirpating Christianity, seems to me. And much of the population is well pleased with that.
The time for outrage seems to me long past. 50 million aborted babies ago in the early 1970’s perhaps. Politicians are emasculating American religion to remove a limitation on their power. They’re using Islam as one of the tools for that purpose; Islam is obliging hoping to ride to power on them. Both, I think, will be disappointed. As will those who have traded their religion for free sex and irresponsibility. Those and they who failed to lead them are in for very special disappointment, seems to me…
Thanks for your comments, Jack. I have recently begun to read Dennis Prager’s “Still the Best Hope.” I see many of your observations/concerns reflected in Prager’s analysis of the state of the US and the dangers that lie ahead if those of us who recognize the uniqueness of Americanism do not take a more active role in shaping policy and culture. I know that I am certainly late to this game of understanding and defending liberty in the constitutional sense of the word and in that error I have participated in this cultural slide.
Here’s to making a dent in the overwhelming onslaught of Leftism. Keep blogging, friend.