The enemy within: evangelical fundamentalism in US armed forces

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

and what special knowledge about america do I refer to in this thread, eh?

Ok, how about this?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Atheists cannot be Americans and should be thrown out of the country. americans criticising it for it'S mistakes are antiamericans, they should get MacCarthynised...

I don't see anyone besides you saying that is the case here in my country so where does it come from? Those so called "history books" you refer to?

[Skybird]

I refer to politicians from both parties having expressed the first part of these statements more than just once since WWII - Reagan for example was one of them. the second part is an ironic summary of the general spirit behind it. The same McCarthian spirit has been expressed here on the board oh so many times as well. So: try again.

Or better: don't. This thread has been derailed enough for the sake of avoiding to adress the primary issue from the beginning: and that was a study by Air Force Lieutenant Colonel William Millonig (if I may stress your precious patience and remind you all a third or fourth time of it), that the publishing site, a US military academy, has summed up like this:

This paper analyzes the impact of a culturally homogeneous group on strategic decision-making and policy recommendations. The United States military's organizational climate has shifted steadily to the right since the Viet Nam War. Today's Armed Forces are increasingly identified with conservative Christian and Republican values. This change in group dynamics can inhibit the decision making process by preventing a thorough review of relevant courses of action, in accordance with the Rational Decision Model. The nature of in-groups and their influence on the decision process can have a deleterious effect on sound decision making, even if only inadvertently. Today's conservative voice has a strong influence on national policy decisions. This makes it imperative that strategic leaders understand the culture shift in today's military, as well as how group dynamics can limit creativity and proper analysis of alternatives. The failure to do so can cause a divergence of opinion between military and civilian leaders and thereby widen the gap in civil military relations.

Not difficult to decide if you have any argument or knowledge to say something on that, or not.

So everybody, if you have nothing on the orginal topic to say or do not wish to do so, and only want to go after me instead - stop waste your - and more important: my and other people's - time, and just stay away. I will no longer react to offtopic comments here.

[Konovalov]

Why doesn't every one just take a little break from the religious stuff on this thread. Let's all take a step back. Even better still spend 5 minutes to purchase the new Subsim 2008 Almanac.

[August]

Ignore? Hardly, it illustrates my point. It's pure gobbledegook Skybird, written to make a mountain out of a mole hill for political purposes. "Conservative Christian values"? Calling them Christians wasn't bad enough apparently, now they're "conservative" Christians. So what's next? "Neo-Christians"?

If the US military has indeed moved to the christian right since the Vietnam war, and that's very debatable given the strong religious backround of the great majority of our military leaders over the two centuries of our national history (and the fact that there are few athiests in foxholes), perhaps it's because ever since the Vietnam war the left has done all it could to alienate them. For example, calling our servicemen and women "murderers" and "baby killers" and throwing feces at them. Don't tell me it didn't happen Skybird. I've seen it with my own eyes. Or offhandedly insulting our troops intelligence like John Kerry did recently, or Algore and co trying to get military absentee ballots thrown out on technicalities like they did in the Y2K presidential election.

If you look hard enough you can find somebody to echo any argument you want to make Skybird and athiests are quite adept at using the internet to make their arguments, but that doesn't make it a valid problem. So far all you have shown with all your and Tchockys links is that there were at one time some overzealous Chaplains in the service academy of one single branch, and that the issue was addressed by the command several years ago. This does not prove that such things are prevailent in our military nor does it prove that athiesm is a better way of life.

The way i see it athiests tend to preach their beliefs (or lack thereof) with even more fervor than the most radical holy roller. Like many Muslims you are so fond of villifying, athiests walk around with the classic chip on their shoulder looking for things to get outraged about. When more than just them are worried about it then it might be a real issue, but until then i see it as just another athiest strawman argument.

[Iceman]

It's just more nonsense....the military is to serve the people, and if majority's of the people are Christian, or whatever then surprise surprise that there would be an influence...same goes for governement.The argument is athesistic nonsense.There should be an influence or else what happens you get some nut case in power with no morals or values and decides Christians should suffer a final solution. :hmm:

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

If the US military has indeed moved to the christian right since the Vietnam war, and that's very debatable given the strong religious backround of the great majority of our military leaders over the two centuries of our national history (and the fact that there are few athiests in foxholes), perhaps it's because ever since the Vietnam war the left has done all it could to alienate them.

I thought this was religious, not political. Find me any candidate who'd have a realistic chance at office if he/she claimed to be an atheist.
Have a look at the Founding Fathers, they believed some very strange stuff, by our standards.

For example, calling our servicemen and women "murderers" and "baby killers" and throwing feces at them. Don't tell me it didn't happen Skybird. I've seen it with my own eyes. Or offhandedly insulting our troops intelligence like John Kerry did recently, or Algore and co trying to get military absentee ballots thrown out on technicalities like they did in the Y2K presidential election.

And this random collection of morons are responsible for a religious shift in a secular armed service? I don't get you. The armed forces are to remain irreligious, no matter what politicians may be saying. Politicians should try the same thing.

So far all you have shown with all your and Tchockys links is that there were at one time some overzealous Chaplains in the service academy of one single branch, and that the issue was addressed by the command several years ago. This does not prove that such things are prevailent in our military nor does it prove that athiesm is a better way of life.

Either A - you aren't reading the links. Or B - you're selectively reading them.

Originally Posted by One of those links

The academy chaplain staff had grown 300 percent while the cadet population had decreased by 25 percent: from six mainline chaplains to 18 chaplains, the additional 12 all evangelical. The academy even gained 25 reserve chaplains, also nonexistent in earlier times, for a total of 43 chaplains for about 4,000 cadets, or one chaplain for every 100 cadets.

That article is twenty days old. Either read links or don't, but don't pretend to. It just looks silly.

The way i see it athiests tend to preach their beliefs (or lack thereof) with even more fervor than the most radical holy roller. Like many Muslims you are so fond of villifying, athiests walk around with the classic chip on their shoulder looking for things to get outraged about. When more than just them are worried about it then it might be a real issue, but until then i see it as just another athiest strawman argument.

Hypothetical situation - Would you see it as a violation of the separation of church and state if a branch of the armed services evangelised it's soldiers in one direction, claiming that unbelievers would burn in hell?

Originally Posted by Iceman

It's just more nonsense....the military is to serve the people, and if majority's of the people are Christian, or whatever then surprise surprise that there would be an influence...same goes for governement. The argument is athesistic nonsense.There should be an influence or else what happens you get some nut case in power with no morals or values and decides Christians should suffer a final solution. :hmm:

So people who aren't religious have no morals or values?

[TteFAboB]

Two problems Skybird:

Starting from the last quote:

This paper analyzes the impact of a culturally homogeneous group on strategic decision-making and policy recommendations. The United States military's organizational climate has shifted steadily to the right since the Viet Nam War. Today's Armed Forces are increasingly identified with conservative Christian and Republican values. This change in group dynamics can inhibit the decision making process by preventing a thorough review of relevant courses of action, in accordance with the Rational Decision Model. The nature of in-groups and their influence on the decision process can have a deleterious effect on sound decision making, even if only inadvertently. Today's conservative voice has a strong influence on national policy decisions. This makes it imperative that strategic leaders understand the culture shift in today's military, as well as how group dynamics can limit creativity and proper analysis of alternatives. The failure to do so can cause a divergence of opinion between military and civilian leaders and thereby widen the gap in civil military relations.

What gives your culturally homogeneous group the priviledge of exemption from the same demand? As far as I understand, you do not advocate diversity, as the author of this piece does, Christian and even Muslim groups included, as long as no group is hegemonic, but an homogeneously atheist Army, as that would be a better army in your opinion. To back my claim, I quote the author praising diversity, not homogeneity of atheism:

The military is a large and exceptionally diverse (regionally and ethnically) organization and cannot
help but have a wide range of imagined possibilities.

(...)

This paper assumes complex decisions have more varied the consequences and

possibilities and therefore require a greater diversity of thought, whether by an individual or by

the organization, to ensure all relevant possibilities are considered.
(...)

Diverse personal views ensure step two of the

rational decision model remains functional, but compatible social views provide the mechanism
for
groupthink to take hold in step three, and increase the likelihood that relevant possibilities
will be missed.

So you pretend to be on the same boat as the author, but in fact the two of you have different positions.

Secondly:

In the decades following the Viet Nam war, the U.S. military officer corps has made a
steady shift toward a conservative Protestant and Republican affiliation. The purpose of this
paper is not to analyze the validity of any individual beliefs, but to show how the rise of conservative Christian and Republican values have affected the military’s decision making, and policy recommendations. Whether right, wrong, or indifferent -- the conservative, Christian voice has impacted our military. America’s strategic thinkers, both military and civilian must be aware of this trend and its potential implications to policy formulation.

Once again the two of you diverge. You question every single one of these individual beliefs and not only is concerned but already judged them wrong, steps the author did not take.

So it seems to me that you are using this piece to suit your own agenda and preaching, putting words into the Lt.Col's mouth and using him as a shield, pretending that he backs your position and opinions while in fact he argues only against the reduced creativity existent in group dynamics in that it affects the range and filtering of imagined possibilities in the decision making process, which could be hypothetically affected by the predominance of any group, Christian or atheist. The rest is, alledgely, history.

Embrace diversity or stop hijacking the guy.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Two problems Skybird:

Starting from the last quote:

What gives your culturally homogeneous group the priviledge of exemption from the same demand? As far as I understand, you do not advocate diversity, as the author of this piece does, Christian and even Muslim groups included, as long as no group is hegemonic, but an homogeneously atheist Army, as that would be a better army in your opinion. To back my claim, I quote the author praising diversity, not homogeneity of atheism:

So you pretend to be on the same boat as the author, but in fact the two of you have different positions.

Negative. The author has the same problem with this "homogenous group" claiming more shares than are it'S own, like i have. His thoughts in this paper are concenring the so-called christian right, or evangelical fundamentalists, and that this special, clearly defined subgroup of Christianity is winning more and more influence, as is to be concluded from this study as well as from the courtcase Tchocky referred to in his articles. It is not about this belief system "Christianity" in general, which is quite different in it'S different forms of christian schools, sects or however you may call them, it is about the diversity of these not being represented in the military. It is about this group "evangelical fundamentalists" being massively overrepresented, and even more: bullying people and put pressure on them to join this one groups' faith (evangelical fundamentalism), and that it also has marked great success in winning positions of power and influence where decision making and anylyse procedures get influenced by this group's dogmatic perception filters.

I did not complain about Christian faith being the dominant faith in the military, but a certain fundamental sub-group being overrepresented, stillg rowing in influence, and abusing it's position to define goals of military politics. Whatever I think on believing and relgio9n in general, I kept it out of this threat, and di not speak about religion nin general, but just this one school of "evangelical fundamentalism". Yes, I have criticism on relgion going beyond just these guys. but that did not play a role here. The courtcase in Tchocky's links features this rich evangelical preacher abusing the Air Force Academy to aggressively recruit new believers for his sect. thatz is again not about christian chaplains in general, but evangelical fundamentalism and proselytizing special.

Depending on the source you use, you will read varying numbers saying that around 60-80% of the American population are confessing to some of the many different Christzian sects and churches in the US. that Chrstian belief is thus the dominant relgion in the armed forces is nothing to be surpsied off. The problem is about the armed forces no longer being truly secular, not interfering with issues of religion (as it should be nby their own rules), but instead having become playground and hunting ground for not all Christian churches, but some fanatical ones amongst them.

the problem is the growing violation of this dictum: “Military professionals must remember that religious choice is a matter of individual conscience. Professionals, and especially commanders, must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates.” Religious Toleration (Air Force Code of Ethics, 1997)

Earlier in this thread, Antikrusek wrote: "Most christians who have been in power have not been backwards bible literalists, its those people who are the threat not the christians who put common sense before scripture." I totally agree. I just hint at this study saying that it is no more like that. The situation has chnaged, and that chnage is dangerous.

Secondly:

Once again the two of you diverge. You question every single one of these individual beliefs and not only is concerned but already judged them wrong, steps the author did not take.

Again, negative. I have not started this thread as a general criticism of beliefs and relgion in general, but with regard to the problem I just has outlined above. I repatedly have tried to lead it back to that after it was ignored and hijacked by others to turn it into a general discussion on religion that the paper - and me - orginally were not about. So I do not question every signle individual's beliefs, as you put it, not in this thread. I was talking about the growing influence of just one powerful, clearly defined subgroup of chrstian belief: envangelical fundamentalism. And that means there are a lot of christian churches and sects that are NOT that. these many churches are not what is the target of the criticism. It is just ione fundamentalist subgroup, that has successfully combined it's power with the conservative values of the political right, and the neocons, and nthat now try together to get the Us under their domination and control.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Embrace diversity or stop hijacking the guy.

Exactly this diversity - gets intentionally prevented by fundamental Christians. they do not wish it. Like all fundamentlaists, they claim that it all has to be around THEIR views, and their views exclusively.

How can one turn things by a 180° and make them appear as exactly the opposite as what this study, the general, an my little efforts, are about?

the study fits nicely with the sueing of the Air Force Academy as linked by Tchocky. That story illustrates perfectly what the general is about.

And some quotes from the first report:

My son and I then made our way to the modernist aluminum chapel, where I expected to hear a welcome from one or two Air Force chaplains offering counsel, support and an open-door policy for any spiritual or pastoral needs of these future cadets. In 1966, the academy had six gray-haired chaplains: three mainline Protestants, two priests and one rabbi. Any cadet, regardless of religious affiliation, was welcome to see any one of these chaplains, who were reminiscent of Father Francis Mulcahy of “MASH” fame.
Instead, my son’s orientation became an opportunity for the academy to aggressively proselytize this next crop of cadets. Maj. Warren Watties led a group of 10 young, exclusively evangelical chaplains who stood shoulder to shoulder. He proudly stated that half of the cadets attended Bible studies on Monday nights in the dormitories and he hoped to increase this number from those in his audience who were about to join their ranks. This “invitation” was followed with hallelujahs and amens by the evangelical clergy. I later learned from Air Force Academy chaplain MeLinda Morton, a Lutheran who was forced to observe from the choir loft, that no priest, rabbi or mainline Protestant had been permitted to participate.

What was it with diversity, TteFaBob?

In order to better understand this shift to a religious ideology at this once secular institution, I called the Academy Association of Graduates (AOG). Its response: “We don’t get involved in policy.” What I didn’t know was that the AOG, like the academy, had affiliations with James Dobson’s and Ted Haggard’s powerful mega-churches. When Dobson’s Focus on the Family “campus” was completed, the academy skydiving team, with great ceremony, delivered the “keys from heaven” to Dobson. During some alumni reunions, the AOG arranged bus tours of Focus on the Family facilities in nearby Colorado Springs, Colo. I also learned that the same Monday night Bible studies discussed at orientation were taught by bused-in members of these evangelical mega-churches and that some spouses of senior academy staff members were employed by these same religious institutions. It seemed that my beloved United States Air Force Academy had morphed into the Rocky Mountain Bible College.
The academy chaplain staff had grown 300 percent while the cadet population had decreased by 25 percent: from six mainline chaplains to 18 chaplains, the additional 12 all evangelical. The academy even gained 25 reserve chaplains, also nonexistent in earlier times, for a total of 43 chaplains for about 4,000 cadets, or one chaplain for every 100 cadets.

Diversity, anyone?

Under the leadership of professor Kristen Leslie, the Yale team issued a stunning report on the divisive and strident evangelical pressures by leadership and staff at the academy.
The response from academy leaders was telling. They at first denied the reports of Watties’ “hell-fire” threats. Under media pressure, they later claimed the violations were committed by a visiting reserve chaplain, when in fact they were by the recent Air Force Chaplain of the Year himself: Watties. In an interview after receiving his Chaplain of the Year award, Watties boasted of baptizing young soldiers in Saddam Hussein’s swimming pool.

...?

Following the release of the “Brady Report,” West Point graduate and Secretary of the Air Force Mike Wynne, ignoring the existing code of ethics, issued another “code of ethics” that allowed evangelical proselytizing. A month later, in an effort to appease the religious right, Wynne issued an even softer “code of ethics.” Amazingly, Wynne’s document is in complete violation of the code of ethics issued in 1997 by Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall prohibiting proselytizing by commanders and other officers.
The pre-existing Air Force code of ethics in The Little Blue Book states:
“Military professionals must remember that religious choice is a matter of individual conscience. Professionals, and especially commanders, must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates.”

...

In the following weeks, a uniformed Army Maj. Gen. William Boykin began sharing his Christian supremacist views from church pulpits around the country, declaring that he was “God’s Warrior” and that “America is a Christian nation.” He demeaned the entire Muslim world by stating that his God was bigger than a Muslim warlord’s god and that the Muslim’s god “was an idol.”

Ha, with a plus in place of a minus, that sounds familiar, I have read it often - in books about Islam, it's fanatism and lacking tolerance, and such. When I attack Islam for what it is, I cannot leave Christian fundamentalism untouched without contradicting myself. Both are offsprings of the same egocentric mind, like twin brothers.

When I started this thread, I did not knew about these events, and Tchocky's articles. I just had read several other, German essays on the problem in general. Somebody in this thread has complained somewhere above that I named it as "The enemy within."
The first of Tchocky's articles is entitled "The cancer within". I wonder what I would have heared if using that instead.

[The WosMan]

These walls of text are really getting old.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by The WosMan

These walls of text are really getting old.

You should try reading them, might liven them up a bit for you. Or there is a second options, if you do not wish to see long posts discussing something that isnt a simple back and white issue stay away from threads dealing with such instead of clutering them up with pointless posts like that, the exact thing im doing right now by replying to you.

[The WosMan]

I think there is an easier way to make a point than just bloviating all over the place. If you can't get to the point in 10 seconds then you have wasted my time.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by The WosMan

If you can't get to the point in 10 seconds then you have wasted my time.

You do not need even that long to waste ours. Dismissed. Report back when you have something constructive to say with regard to this thread's focus - Ltn Col Millonig's study paper, and the events at the Air Force Academy, that is.

So everybody, if you have nothing on the orginal topic to say or do not wish to do so, and only want to go after me instead - stop waste your - and more important: my and other people's - time, and just stay away. I will no longer react to offtopic comments here.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Either A - you aren't reading the links. Or B - you're selectively reading them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One of those links
The academy chaplain staff had grown 300 percent while the cadet population had decreased by 25 percent: from six mainline chaplains to 18 chaplains, the additional 12 all evangelical. The academy even gained 25 reserve chaplains, also nonexistent in earlier times, for a total of 43 chaplains for about 4,000 cadets, or one chaplain for every 100 cadets.

That article is twenty days old. Either read links or don't, but don't pretend to. It just looks silly.

Yeah and if you actually read the article like i did you'll note that he was talking about something that happened in 2004. Maybe you should follow your own advice dude.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Diversity, anyone?

So if we can believe this obviously biased persons numbers, out of 48 new chaplains at the AF academy back in 2004 a whopping 12 of them are considered (by him) to be evangelical. Yeah i'd say that would be pretty diverse. Maybe not as diverse as it could be but far more diverse than you imply.

I wonder how many of the other 36 chaplains are Muslim?