On these pages, I wrote last week about the meeting by Michael “Mikey” L. Weinstein, Esq., Founder and President of Military Religious Freedom Foundation (“MRFF”), a decidedly anti-Christian group, with President Obama Pentagon appointees on April 23, 2013, to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military (including chaplains) who express or share their faith with others. Mr. Weinstein is the author of several anti-Christian books and named as one of the “100 Most Influential People in U.S. Defense” by Defense News in December 2012, where he outranked General David Petraeus. Mr. Weinstein has stated that U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary – to stave off what he called a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.” Mr. Weinstein observed, “Someone needs to be punished for this. Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.” The Pentagon tried to spin this as the only meeting between Pentagon officials and Mr. Weinstein.
However, while this meeting was depicted as the first meeting between Mr. Weinstein and Pentagon brass, The New York Times (“NYT”) reported on March 1, 2009, in a story entitled “Questions Raised Anew About Religion in Military,” (available here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/washington/01church.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& ), that Mr. Weinstein first met with four-star general and Air Force chief of staff, Norton A. Schwartz, in February 2009, mere weeks after President Obama’s inauguration. This was the first time that Mr. Weinstein and MRFF had an official meeting with a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During President Bush’s presidency, Mr. Weinstein’s MRFF sued the Defense Department as part of his anti-Christian crusade, so President Obama political appointees and the sycophantic generals at the Pentagon knew exactly who Mr. Weinstein was, and what he wanted to do, when General Schwartz met with him in 2009. The NYT story gives a laundry list of Weinstein and MRFF’s grievances against the Defense Department during the Bush administration, including a “ceremony that began and ended with a Christian prayer…the appearance of uniformed officers at religious events, [and] displays of crucifixes at military chapels…” For their average NYT readers, the story indicated that “Christian prayers” are prayers that are offered “in Jesus’ name.” (You sure didn’t need to explain that to readers in either Dallas or South Carolina.) In any event, while the Bush Defense Department fought Mr. Weinstein and MRFF in court, President Obama and Secretary Hagel welcomed him again on Apr. 23, 2013, to discuss how to stop seditious and treasonous Christian evangelization (oops, I meant Christian proselytization) within the military, a distinction that may seem to be without a difference.
However, as a public service to our nation’s military personnel, Mere Comments offers to clarify the difference between Christian evangelism (which is still permitted speech and conduct) and proselytization (which is now prohibited speech and conduct). Thus, military personnel are legally permitted to say, “Have you made the wonderful discovery of receiving Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?” and “Have you ever considered the claims of Jesus Christ on your life?” However, military personnel are not permitted to say, “Hey Soldier, your life is all messed up! You had better get right with Jesus Christ, Who loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life?” Further soldiers will no longer be permitted to say, “Hey, Soldier, you want to come to the base chapel with me this coming Sunday morning?” Notice the clear and distinct difference between the two sets of statements: prohibited statements use the term, “Hey, Soldier,” but permitted statements do not. Clear, right?
Thanks, Michael. “President Obama and Secretary Hagel welcomed him again on Apr. 23, 2013”–ironic that they met to talk about suppressing Christian witness in the military on the Feast Day of St. George, great Christian soldier and martyr! And notice how the word “punish” is starting to creep in. Punish, and punish more, and more, and it starts to look like classic persecution, no? Well, Our Lord said his followers would sometimes be unappreciated.
[…] The Difference Between Evangelization and Proselytization Michael Avramovich, Mere Comments […]
A question for reflection. The military bans fraternization between officers and enlisted. In the cases of dating, sexual relationships, etc., fraternization is flatly prohibited – even when the relationship is free from perceived bias, unfairness, coercion, etc. – because some relationships have too much potential for abuse.
Is it possible that evangelization of enlisted troops by their superior officers could be such a circumstance? They have much more power than a boss in civilian life. As the Marine fraternization policy states, “(REMEMBER: when dealing with the subject of fraternization, perceptions are as deadly as reality).”
Ask yourself how you’d feel if your CO asked, even politely, if you’d ever considered adopting, say, Islam or Wicca.
[…] The Difference Between Evangelization and Proselytization Michael Avramovich, Mere Comments […]
Officers are cautioned not to abuse their authority over troops to coerce their behavior in areas outside their common responsibilities as soldiers. Coercive abuse of authority is prohibited whether it is used to compel the less powerful soldier to become involved in a sexual relationship, to join an Amway distribution chain, to provide personal services to the officer (such as painting his house), to support his political candidate, or to attend his church. A great deal depends on the context of the communication as well as the specificity of it. The US armed forces are not a culture like Japan’s, where subordinates are expected to subtly perceive, without explicit communication, the desires of his boss, and satisfy them. You don’t get American soldiers to do anything unless you tell them straight out.
A lot of military work involves preparing and then waiting. Waiting for the order to roll out, for the order to board a plane, for an attack. During those waits, conversation can wander to all sorts to topics. Sometimes it goes to religious questions. In such a context, even a commander can express his or her personal religious views, especially if the context has made it clear that there is no expectation that subordinates will agree.
When it comes to peers, though, the assumption of coercion is not there. There is no reason to assume that one person is going to feel coerced just because another is expressing a personal viewpoint or belief. Anyone who thinks that it is coercive to simply hear a differing viewpoint has no faith in democracy nor in the mental toughness of the American soldier. America’s enemies must be heartened to hear that American soldiers now will surrender at the mere mention of an enemy piece of propaganda.
The First Amendment says that government has no business “shielding” us from hearing the views of others, whether religious, political, or otherwise. Outside of questions that involve the military chain of command, and specific military orders and regulations, a soldier retains his or her freedoms to speak and otherwise express themselves. No one in the military has authority to prohibit a soldier from attending his own church, nor to force that soldier to attend his own church or anyone else’s.
Active proselytization among prisoners happens all the time, and the courts would no doubt intervene if a prisoner were told to refrain from recruiting a fellow prisoner into the Nation of Islam. Yet Mr. Weinstein wants to take from soldiers the freedom that even convicted felons can exercise.
Um, actually, Weinstein (and the MRFF in general) pretty much reserve their complaints for “Coercive abuse of authority”. Go ahead, check and see what they’ve actually complained about. I would be very surprised if you could find a case of them complaining about “conversation… wander[ing]… to religious questions”.
I suppose there have been some complaints that include “peers”, in the context of, say, violence or threats thereof. But that, too, is already against military regulations.
[…] “The Difference Between Evangelization and Proselytization,” First Things […]
[…] “The Difference Between Evangelization and Proselytization,” First Things […]