Michael Weinstein, author of God on Our Side, is reporting alarming amount of Christian fundamentalist evangelizing in the U.S. armed forces up and down the  chain of command from 3 and 4-star generals to staff sergeants.  He also reports incidents of religious intolerance and the brandishing of Nazi symbols on military bases.

If what Weinstein is telling us is true, we're in a lot of trouble.

He calls them "Dominionists."

http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about.html

That is very scary. When I was in there was a incident that involved a Wiccan. I read about it in Stars & Stripes but it involved my old unit. I didn't know the Wiccan but I knew her commander. She basically wanted her 8 "Sabbits"  off-she said that she work on Christmas, Easter and other days. It was a reasonable request. And her commander (who used to be my commander) was supporting her. But was was really shocking about that was that he was a graduate of ORU.  :o :o :o  Here was a guy who was from the ultra Christian fundamentalist college going to bat for a Pagan's beliefs just floored me.  But of course that was almost 20 years ago.



Cat

20 years ago, heck over 20 years ago, a lot of civil liberties watchdog groups were predicting how dangerous the Christian Right would become if left unchecked.  Then as now they wre called liberal elitist communist treasonous America-haters.  Far from keeping the Christian Right in check, our political leaders--if not in the ranks of the Christian Right--either kowtowed to the Christian Right or cowered before them.  Still others believed the Christian Right could be reformed if only the movement could be re-directed from its fascist elements (Robertson, Falwell, Dobson) and to a more loving and tolerant interpretation of Jesus' teachings--or at least one that was not in stark contrast to what Jesus taught.

The problem is at the core of the Christian fundamentalism the Republican Party harnessed in the '70s and used to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980.  This was neither a spiritual nor a religious movement.  It was a Trojan Horse political movement designed for all that liberalism made unacceptable: White supremacy, anti-semitism, male chauvinism, female subjection, and especially government involvement in matters of civic engineering, civil rights, social justice, and economic policy. 

They don't want to go back to the 1950, as liberals continue to think.  They want to go back to 1900.  George Will said so himself, and Will is a moderate compared to the likes of the Bush family. 

Weinstein calls them "dominionist," which is a term they embrace themeselves.  I think a good term for it is christofascism.  It is no accident the dominionist movement has headquartered itself in the U.S. military.  Don't say it can't happen here!

We had one on this board, "Lterhune," who was a "chaplin" in the navy; a vile and ignorant Biblical literalist who knew of Christianity only what the dominionists taught her and thought it wa her duty to heap abuse on anybody who disagreed.

People like her are in charge of atomic weapons.  How about that?

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/eek2.gif

I don't know about Evangelising the military, but last night I saw a TV advertisement for Hillsong

www.hillsong.com.au

It's aimed at young people from broken homes and former drug addicts who want to "find God". Why not replace one drug with another, after all?

Nice to see it's not just me who sees the irony in Christian evangelism in the military... yeah, right: "thou shalt not kill.. except for anybody your superior officers tell you to".

Nice to see it's not just me who sees the irony in Christian evangelism in the military... yeah, right: "thou shalt not kill.. except for anybody your superior officers tell you to".


That was the Old Testament.  The dominionists will cite Matthew 10:34:
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword.

The literalists claim it literally means military arms...but wait...how literal do you want to get?  Jesus did not say a gun, or a bomb, or an anti-personnel device. He said a "sword," so shouldn't the U.S. military restrict itself to fighting with swords?

Wait, scratch that, Matthew 10:34 witnesses Christ as saying "I" not "you" not "we."  Watch your pronouns.  So isn't it Jesus' charge alone to bring the sword when HE returns?

However, even metaphorically, the "sword" suggests Jesus for HIS dominion will divide nation from nation, faith from faith, and family from family.  It's still a nice passage for the dominionists.  This is why I'm in favor of separation of church and state.  When a tribe believes it alone holds the ultimate truth, rivers of blood shall follow!

The militant Imams like to use the prophet Mohammed the same way. 

If there is an "ultimate truth" there can be only one and no peace is possible until all humanity is forced to bow before it...

So what's it gonna be?  Jesus or Mohammed?  Step right up and place your bets!

If it makes me a secular progressive liberal elitist because I don't wish the world to return to medieval holy wars, then so be it!
::)