Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Should We Allow Islamic Chaplains in the U.S. Military

Posted by truthtalklive on August 27, 2007

Author Don Brown www.donbrownbooks.com  spent five years in the U.S. Navy as an officer in the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corp. He’s the author of Treason, Hostage and Defiance all published by Zondervan.

Advertisements

26 Responses to “Should We Allow Islamic Chaplains in the U.S. Military”

  1. justin said

    I wanted to comment on the topic should we allow muslim chaplains in the U.S. military… I would start by asking these questions…Are we of this world system as christian’s? Is the U.S. military of the kingdom of heaven? Why should we being called by God for his purpose be concerned about the armies of this world? Rather have Faith that Our God has all these things under control. We know what will become of this world and it’s armies!Whose end is destruction whose god is their belly and whose glory is their shame,who mind earthly things!! for our conversation is in heaven;for whence also we look for the saviour,the Lord Jesus Christ who shall change our vile body that it might be fashioned like unto His gloriuos body,according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

  2. kandace said

    To Don Brown,
    Although it would be nice not to allow Islamic chaplains in the US military, it will happen sometime because of Constitutional concerns.
    Since we have Christian chaplains, Jewish Chaplains, etc., Islamic chaplains must be permitted. It is theoretically possible to remove all chaplaincy services from the US military but nobody wants that to occur.

  3. Gina said

    I just wanted to say that I’ve read Don Brown’s Treason, Hostage, and Defiance and found them not only entertaining, and well-written but also quite thought provoking. I’m very much looking forward to his next release in Zondervan’s Navy Justice Series, Black Sea Affair. I found today’s topic insightful. Thanks for interviewing one of Christian fiction’s most promising authors. Great discussion.

  4. Lee said

    The Koran makes clear that lying to non-Muslims is fine and one does not have to keep a bargain or agreement with a non-Muslim. Several years ago a Muslim FBI agent refused to inform on what he heard in Mosques. The God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and of our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ does not exhort us to back up another Christian in violating law and order. A liar is a son of Satan because he is the father of lies. Walking uprightly and in integrity brings glory to the Father and Jesus. Some may not follow the Word of God but that is what He says which is contrast to the Koran.

  5. Don Brown said

    Stu,

    Very much appreciate the hospitality today and for the opportunity to participate in this invigorating discussion on your show. It was a blast and I hope we can do it again soon. Permit me to briefly reiterate the essence of my position today.

    For national security reasons, Islamic imams should not be allowed to serve in the chaplain corps of the various branches at this time. Although that may not seem “fair,” “fair,” is irrelevant in the military.

    A military member does not enjoy the same panoply of Consitutional rights as the citizen on the courthouse square. Unbridled freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right of privacy, the right to peaceably assemble — these are constituional rights that citizens who volunteer to serve in our armed forces leave largely at the door when they volunteer to serve.

    A military member is sworn to defend the Constituion against all enemies, foreign and domestic, through the use of force if neessary.

    Ironically, that often means giving up some of those rights within the military so that those in the public square can enjoy the full array of rights that make us a constitutional republic.

    A military is not a democracy. We don’t get to vote on who our commanding officer is going to be. We get to vote on who our commander-in-chief is going to be, but that’s it. Chain of command is the order of the day. Not governance by committee. That’s the way it has to be.

    Therefore, the whole fairness argument … i.e. it’s not fair to to have a Christian or Jewish chaplain, but not a Muslim chaplain … does not hold water. The military’s purpose is to win wars to protect the Consitution, not to be a bastion of fairness and civil liberties to those who serve in it.

    Moreover, the United States is at war with radical Islam. We are not at war, thank the Lord, with Christian or Jews. The facts are this. Radical Islam attacked America and seeks to attack and kill again. The Chief of Homeland Security said recently it isn’t a matter of if we get hit again, but when. By contrast, Christians and Jews do not attack America. Christians built America.

    Even still, we must guard against bigotry against Muslims and display the Lord’s love, who commanded us to “love your neighbor as yourself,” and to “pray for your enemies.” We must be ever vigilent to protect our nation and our families, but take the gospel of Christ to our Muslim neighbors. In the end, it is the Gospel of Christ that is the power of salvation, to the Christian and Jew alike, and also to the Muslim.

    Take care and God bless,

    Don Brown

  6. So, are you arguing that Muslim chaplains cannot be trusted? You’re citing security reasons. Are you saying that the Muslim chaplains would favor the enemy, i.e. radical Muslims, or rather, be too great a security risk, eg. espionage?

    If that’s your argument, since I was unable to listen, are you are also of the opinion that Muslims in general should not be allowed to serve in the US military?

    If you argue the former but not the latter argument, then doesn’t your former argument prove to much or your latter too little?

  7. Don Brown said

    Thank you for your question, Genembridges. You ask a good one.

    Think back to World War II in Europe. There the U.S. was battling not just the nation of Germany, but a hegemonious philosophy bent on philosophical and geographic expansion. Think too, to the Cold War. The United States again faced not just a potential enemy in the nation of Russia per se, but a power hungry, expansionist Communist philosophy that sought to expand into Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia to Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.

    Both these political philosophies, Nazism and Communism, brandished a form of government, indeed a philosophy that is an anathema to the American Constitutional Republic. In both cases, free speech was stifled, civil liberties were ignored, freedom of religion was often trounced upon.

    Now I ask you this. Would it have behooved us, in the middle of either the Hot War or the Cold War, to have funded propaganda ministers for each of these philosophies to stand in the midst of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and not only espouse their anti-American philosophies, but actually recruit service members into it?

    Today, we face another enemy. That enemy is radical Islam. Like the Japanese suddenly and deliberately attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Radical Islam struck the American homeland in 2001. But unlike the Japanese, who at least limited their attack primarily to military targets, Radical Islam has taken a more cowardly approach, attacking inocent civilians. Radical Islam is an anathema to the Constituion. It stifles the rights of women and treats them as little more than amimals. It kills women and children. It takes hostages and holds them for blackmale. It suppresses all religous practices except for its own. In short, it is everything our Constitution is not.

    Now I ask you this. Does it behoove us, in the middle of this war against radical Islam, to fund its propaganda ministers in the form of military chaplains to espouse a philosophy that calls for killing Christians and Jews, to stand in the midst of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and not only espouse their anti-American philosophies, but actually recruit service members into it?

    If you heard the show today, you heard me say that not all Islamic Americans should be banned from the military. The majority of Islamic Americans, are more or less Islamic in name only. Most have never read the Qu’ran. Many have become westernized and many are harmless. Many don’t know any more about their religion than Christians know about Christianity.

    But chaplains are a different breed. Just like it’s the job of a Christian minister to preach the gospel, it’s the job of the Imam to promote Islam. And like Communism and Nazism were philosophies incompatibale with our Constitution, so is Islam.

    Calling for the killing of Christians and Jews and infidels, and the Qu’ran does, is at odds with the 5th Amendment’s due process clause, which prohibits the taking of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

    Indiscriminate murder, the mode of radical Islam based upon the Qu’ran, is taking life without due process. That’s unconstitonal.

    All military officers must take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. An Islamic chaplain cannot fully preserve protect and defend the constituion, while at the same time espousing the true tenets of his religion. It cannot be done. The Qu’ran and the Constitution are incompatible with one another.

    Radical Islam is the enemy of the United States. History and current events show this in example after example of acts of Jihad. Just as Communists or Nazis were properly not allowed to propagansize in the midst of war, likewise, the proponents of Radical islam — its IMAMS –should not be allowed to espouse their positions in the chaplain corps of the military.

  8. Anonymous said

    “Like the Japanese suddenly and deliberately attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Radical Islam struck the American homeland in 2001.” – Don Brown

    In 1941 Japan and Germany were internationally recognized nations with internationally recognized political borders. When we declared war on those nations the objectives were easy to understand. There were standing Armies flying the flags of the enemy nations occupying the territory of other nations. How is that like “Radical Islam is the enemy of the United States.”? One would expect that a Naval officer would have a better understanding of history.

    In Don Brown’s America, would we march off to war against the non-believers with crosses on our flags? Is this what we want? A new Crusade to try to placate the neocon fundamentalists’ desire of dominating the world?

    We are torturing people in secret prisons. That is what the Nazis and the Communists did. What are we coming to?

    I say if you want freedom you better be prepared to fight for it, but this fight is wrong. We could have bagged the whole Al Quaeda crowd had we not gone off crusading. And what are we doing in Iraq? We have unleashed the Sunni/Shia civil war that was bottled up under Saddam and what will we have at the end of the day? More reason for the world to hate us.

  9. Anonymous said

    Disband the Chaplain Corps. Allow officers to have chaplains available (at the officers’ expense) to provide whatever religious services that are wanted. The enlisted men can attend these services.

  10. Think back to World War II in Europe…

    Brother Don, this an argument from analogy minus the argument. You’re also bundling together two separate questions: a historical analogy and Islam and the Constitution.

    If you heard the show today, you heard me say that not all Islamic Americans should be banned from the military. The majority of Islamic Americans, are more or less Islamic in name only. Most have never read the Qu’ran. Many have become westernized and many are harmless. Many don’t know any more about their religion than Christians know about Christianity.

    Yes, there are many nominal Christians. I’m a Reformed Baptist, I have no problem in pointing out that unregenerate persons line the pews of many churches. The SBC can’t get half her members into church on any given Sunday. There are also many nominal Muslims.

    So, are you only arguing that nominal Muslims should be allowed into the US military? Put another way, are you arguing that Muslims who parallel, let’s say, the more learned Christian in terms of the trajectory of their faith and practice and knowledge of their theology should not be allowed to serve in the US military? If not, then isn’t that inconsistent, for that person, if your argument re: Imams is true, is also a security risk, right?

    But chaplains are a different breed. Just like it’s the job of a Christian minister to preach the gospel, it’s the job of the Imam to promote Islam. And like Communism and Nazism were philosophies incompatible with our Constitution, so is Islam.

    I’ll take these in reverse order.

    A. Communism and Nazism were during the Second World War and during the Cold War, largely homogeneous movements. This isn’t true of Islam, so your comparison fails at a critical point of comparison. Islam is incompatible insofar as Islam is wedded to the state, but not all Muslim states are religious states. Turkey is a prime example. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists.

    B. This is true, but:

    a. The regenerate person will not apostatize according to 1 John, so you can’t argue on the basis that promotion of religion will cause apostasy among true believers.

    b. Apropos a, that argument, if you tried it would also apply equally well to Jews, Hindus, or any others.

    c. It’s true the job of the Imam is to promote Islam. But it seems to me that you are assuming, without benefit of argument, the content of what he will promote.

    Moderate Muslims are demonstrably at odds with “radical” Muslims.

    Calling for the killing of Christians and Jews and infidels, and the Qu’ran does, is at odds with the 5th Amendment’s due process clause, which prohibits the taking of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

    Is this an additional argument to the original, that your concern is security or is it a supporting argument for “the duty of the Imam is to promote Islam?” If the former, you’re now changing your argument, which would be a backdoor admission that your first one is not strong enough to stand on its own; if the latter, I can see that as being possibly valid.

    Let me say something here before I continue. You’ll find that I understand what you’re saying, I’ve debated Muslims here: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ I’m just trying to understand your argument.

    You seem to be assuming,without benefit of argument that an Imam in the military will necessarily promote radical Islam. Is that correct?

    I think what you’re pointing out, that is to say, the thinking behind your argument, is that there is a, pardon the pun, fundamental tension in the Qu’ran’s teaching and between Imams themselves. Islam is rather like Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy’s “Holy Tradition” is rather vague, and I’ve interacted with enough of them to know they often make contradictory appeals to tradition. I’ve seen this in Islam as well. However, I’m trying to understand how this tension is enough of a warrant to prohibit Imams – whom one would think the military would thoroughly vet before allowing them into the corps at all – from serving, since not all Imams hold those positions we both find problematic.

    Unlike the Bible, whose theology is couched in didactic, poetry, and narrative and can be exegeted well, the Qu’ran cannot. It’s a sayings collection, and virtually anything can be said, for there is no context to it. Further, it isn’t unusual to find Muslims blunting the force of one text with another. While this can sometimes be true in Christian circles, it is resolvable by careful exegesis. (Great dissent among evangelical Christians is a relatively new phenomenon too, because they are awash with relativism and post-modernism.) This isn’t so in Islam, where often tradition is the court of appeal, and tradition is amorphous and varied.

    You seem to be saying that “promoting Islam” would create an unnecessary security risk by either making soldiers sympathetic or creating more Muslims among our soldiers. Is this correct?

    A. To that I have to answer first theologically: the elect will not, according to Scripture apostatize and they will also not become Muslims, and/or if they do it will be temporary. Eventually, the unbelieving elect will be converted anyway.

    B. A “new convert” would be on the level of the nominal, uneducated Muslim, who is not a threat according to your own argument.

    C. The “cure” to “Muslim evangelism” is really the American church recovering the Gospel, and that includes Christian chaplains getting their act together too. When less than 40 percent of the SBC doesn’t show up to church on Sunday while the SBC says it has 16.4 million members, we have a bigger problem than Imam’s spreading Islam in the military. We’ve lost the Gospel.

    How do you distinguish a moderate Muslim from a terrorist or militant Muslim? A number of articles have been written by Muslims and non-Muslims alike that provide criteria to differentiate between the two. Some of these touch on rights for non-Muslims, institution of Islamic law above national law, and political viewpoints. But one criterion common to all focuses on the Muslim’s attitude toward the use of aggressive violence.

    Some Muslims object to the classification of “Moderate or Militant” because historically Muslims have never been identified this way. They argue that this definition is merely a Western construct used to classify Muslims based upon their politics or sympathies. There is some merit in their objection; but they are missing the bigger picture behind this classification.

    People want to know whom they can and cannot trust. I do too. You seem to be arguing that no Imams can be trusted.

    However, the biggest killer of Muslims today is other Muslims. The truth is that Islamic fundamentalists pose a severe threat to all including moderate Muslims. No person in the world can consider himself safe if Islamic fundamentalists get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. So, it seems to me that the answer is not to ban all Imams, rather it is to weed out the radical ones by allowing those who differ to serve in order to rebut the radicals.

    You could argue, however, that all should be banned because the military can’t make that determination. However, that would run you up to the First Amendment, and you have elsewhere argued, “A military member does not enjoy the same panoply of Constitutional rights as the citizen on the courthouse square. Unbridled freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right of privacy, the right to peaceably assemble — these are constitutional rights that citizens who volunteer to serve in our armed forces leave largely at the door when they volunteer to serve.”

  11. Don Brown said

    In Don Brown’s America, would we march off to war against the non-believers with crosses on our flags? Is this what we want? A new Crusade to try to placate the neocon fundamentalists’ desire of dominating the world?

    Dear Anymonymous. If you listened to yesterday’s show, you would have to truthfully concede that nothing like that was ever said. The issue was not whether the military force against an enemy was proper, but rather, whether Islamic Chaplains should serve in the U.S. military. Don’ know if you listened, but I know the show is replayed in some markets, and perhaps you’ll get an opportunity to hear.

    My America is your America. It’s still an America where we can engage in this conversation, in this debate, if you will, without fear of persecution. We can worship whomever we want, whenever we want, whereever we want. It’s an America where, despite all it’s flaws, freedom still reigns.

    But there are forces out there that want to radically change our way of life, that would end the Constitutional republic that we are, that would make it a crime to worship anying but allah.

    With all due respect, you are espousing a postition I never took. No, I would not use our military forces to go on a crusade. However, I would encourage you to not lose sight of the fact that Radical Islam physically attacked us, and they aren’t done that.

    Would you, sir, feel comfortable with the notion of a thermonuclear device in the hands of Radical Islam. Would you, if you were commander-in-chief, sit back and do nothing if there were a radical philosophy out there, well oiled and well financed, bent on killing your people and destroying your nation and its way of life.

    There’s a distinction to be made between use of military force for a crusade of some sort — as you have incorrectly suggested that I would advocate — and using it for self defense, which I do advocate, even if that means preemptive strikes against them before they can strike against us.

    Brother Genembridges, thank you for your well-reasoned comments. I’ll do my best to address some of them when I get a little more time. Right now, I’ve gotta leave to take my daughter to school. God bless,

    Don

  12. Anonymous said

    “Would you, sir, feel comfortable with the notion of a thermonuclear device in the hands of Radical Islam. Would you, if you were commander-in-chief, sit back and do nothing if there were a radical philosophy out there, well oiled and well financed, bent on killing your people and destroying your nation and its way of life.”
    – Don Brown

    What a tired old warhorse that is, Don. Is that the best you can do? I understand that you want to sell your books, but is inculcating in your readers the fear of imaginary boogeymen with nukes going to ease your conscience? Maybe I have misunderstood you. Maybe you aren’t motivated by the typical neocon/fundamentalist talking points. Maybe it’s just the money that motivates you? In that case I apologize. Greed is easier for me to understand.

    You can sell that book to someone else, brother.

  13. Anonymous said

    Dear Don, have you ever read the Iraqi Constitution? Iraq is an Islamic Republic where no laws can contradict the laws of Islam.

    Why then do you advocate us fighting for the very thing that you say is our enemy?

  14. Don Brown said

    Dear Anynoymous,

    Thanks again for writing. For time sake and because I have many other committments, I don’t want to stray very far from the issue we were debating on the show, namely, whether under these circumstances, Islamic chaplains should be allowed to serve.

    But on the question of military force, let me make this clear. Yes, I do advocate the use of it to defend that United States and to defend American citizens from attack, which has happened at the hands of radical Islam and which will continue to happen. I would advocate the use of preemptive strikes if adequate intelligence suggests that those strikes are against groups that pose an imminent danger to the United States.

    Thanks for writing and God bless.

  15. Troy said

    I understand the author’s desire to stay close to the chaplain topic but I must say, the Anonymous replies bring up true points that Christians seem to be missing. I only heard part of the show, but seem to remember comments about such things during the show. The fact is the current administration ,as well as almost all Republican candidates for President in 2008, have made it clear they would not only use preemptive military strikes to stop a perceived nuclear threat, but that they would be willing to use a nuclear first strike themselves. This should be troubling to everyone.

    Another fact almost entirely overlooked in the discussion is that Islam is not the only danger to our way of life and freedoms in this country. As can be illustrated in the Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt case, the military itself eroded religious freedom from within. This was the chaplain who was commanded not to pray in the name of Jesus. Klingebschmitt received little help from any supposed conservative Christians, including our President. Much like Judge Roy Moore who lost his job for refusing to remove the ten commandments from the court house. In fact the President gave the prosecutor in that case a promotion.

    A bigger threat to our Republic is the erosion of constitutional liberties in the “war on terror” and in the name of security and safety. Christians need to wake up and refuse to abide by the culture of fear being promoted by politicians and pulpits alike. I think to many are getting their reasoning from fictional anti terror agents on television programs than from the Word of God.

    I do agree with Don Brown about winning Muslims to Christ, what a radical idea in today’s culture of fear.

  16. Don Brown said

    Troy, thanks for the comment. I agree with virtually everything you’ve said. If our freedoms as a society are eroded as a result of acts of terror, then we are no longer the nation we once were, and the terrorists have won.

    I am extremely concerned about the erosion of civil liberties under the guise of the war on terror, and I agree with your point re the Klingenschmitt case. Military chaplains should be allowed to pray in the name of Jesus.

    This principle was established by General George Washington himself, who, after Congress established the initial compliment of Army chaplains in 1775, issued this general order when the Continental Army was encamped in New York City in 1777:

    Then, the chaplain’s corps was augmented as a result of Washington’s general orders of 9 July 1776, when the Army was quartered in New York City.

    These orders directed that:
    The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure for chaplains accordingly, persons of good character and exemplary lives. To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religions exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest rights and Liberties of his country.

    Think about it. By general order, the greatest American in history, the first President of the United States, the President of the Constitutional Convention, has set forth his desire that every offier become a “Christian” Soldier….

    Our military leaders should understand history, not be ignorant of it, and boldly embrace the principles today set forth by the father of our country. To have refused to let Klingenschmitt pray in the name of Jesus is despicable and is an affront to our heritage.

  17. Don Brown said

    My mistake and my apologies on the previous post. Washington’s order was issued in 1776, not 1777.

  18. Troy said

    Thank you Don, you bring hope to the discussion which is often polarized beyond logic in order to distract from the fact you point out about ignorant leaders. That ignorance is exactly why our country is in moral decline, taking liberty and truth with it.

    Much needs to be reinforced about how inspired our founding fathers truly were.

  19. Anonymous said

    Yes, Troy, but society circa 1800 is too easily romanticized by many. The thing that George and Co. got right, and that we owe them the most for is the secular law that keeps us free.

    Sure, the founding fathers prayed for and waxed poetic about our duties as Christians, but then they went home to their slave labor plantations and enjoyed the fruits of other people’s labors, denied women their rights, destroyed native American culture, etc. all before going to bed. They lived in a world which you or I would find very disagreeable in many areas.

    You get my point and I’m sure you’ll forgive my dramatization.

  20. Don Brown said

    But Troy, that secular law of which you speak is based upon a moral foundation and upon a rock that is a higher law, namely the Bible. George Washington, the father of our country, and the President of the Constitutional Convention, would tell you that if he were alive today.

    Let’s not obfuscate the issues here. The scoruage of slavery was prevalent not only in America, but in Britain as well during the early 1700s. Britain got rid of it about a hundred years or so before we did. Not all the founding fathers were slaveowners. The abolution of slavery was an issue whose time had not yet come when this country was established. Other issues were at hand that either took place or had to take place first before America was mature enough to look slavery in the eye and say “No more.” War with Britain. Establishing a Constitution. A second war with Britain. War with Mexico. At the tie of the founding fathers, America was not at a place historically where we could yet deal with it.

    Remember, there wasn’t even a country yet. We were controlled by the Britain, where slavery had flourished up until the day of Wilberforce, and frankly, America needed to break fee from Britain and grow as a country to have the muscle as a nation to finally end it. That’s what happened.

    The abolition of slavery by the way, finds its philosophical underpinnings in Judeo-Christian biblical philosophy, in stark contrast to Islam, where women are treated as something not much better than slaves in Islamic nations today. Thanks for your comments.

  21. Troy said

    Don, I think you meant to direct your comment to “Anonymous”.
    … And I agree, slavery did not take long to be dealt with by America, but it was secondary to separating from the bondage of England. Remember we were declaring our independence from a tyrant and, unlike Iraq, the founders were doing this out of their own will and desire, not an external third party force.

    As Don points out, much of the justification for that desire to become a free people as well as the eventual abolishment of slavery in America was taken from the founders’ understanding of the Word of God. That leads me to a more important point to this discussion; that the country of Iraq will never be truly free and definitely will never be a “democracy” like we are being told is the goal (and the reason to stay) because it has a “constitution” based on Islamic law.

    The troubling thing is that the very “Christian” leaders who support the Iraq war care little about this fact. What is so hard to understand about what this means? For that country to even resemble a so called democratic society will require occupation, period. I believe our leaders know this, it is part of the plan. Many of them have no intentions of ever leaving as can be evidenced by the building of at least 15 permanent American bases and the worlds largest American embassy (the size of the Vatican.) It’s not even your tax money paying for it all because that’s gone before it even pays the interest (my point is, there is no way to pay for any of this.)

  22. Anonymous said

    Don, I agree but my point is that they didn’t live the pious (fundamentalist) idealized Christian lives that some would have us think.

    As much as we can ascribe the Constitution to the moral underpinnings (or whatever the slogan is) of the FF’s Christian faith, the fact is they did not try to create a theocracy, nor did they give much latitude for theocracy to evolve.

    I guess that I disagree with some modern Christian apologists always referring to some time in our history (USA) when things were so much better.

    I say that we are more free today to practice our religion than we ever were.

    Troy, I concur with you about the situation in Iraq.

  23. Troy said

    Anonymous, I agree that the founders did not intend a theocracy as well. The point I would make is that most of the founders were guided by biblical principles. It is true that not all of them were Christians and they were of differing denominations. Some were deists, but all had a basic biblical moral compass and belief in the Creator and Him being the source of liberty and freedom.

  24. Don Brown said

    Troy, my apologies. Yes, I was writing to Anonymous, but my mind has been pretty fried. Up all the night before writing a brief.

  25. Satyakam said

    I’ve been reading through this interesting discussion thread and couldn’t resist inserting my two cents. I am an officer in the US Army currently deployed to Iraq (who also happens not to be Christian, but Hindu). I think, in this debate (particularly those who oppose Islamic chaplains) we are forgetting or failing to realize, altogether, the purpose of Chaplains in the US Military.

    The number one purpose of the Chaplains Corps (as with the other major support branches) is to preserve the morale and fighting strength of the soldier/sailor/marine/airman and fighting force. In times of great danger and uncertainty, what comforts, uplifts and motivates a warrior more thoroughly than his/her faith in his/her God and spiritual beliefs? The Chaplains serve to help a warrior recognize, strenghthen, and use this faith to rise above fear and hesitation and complete the mission. True, it has absolutely nothing to do with fairness or freedom or religion. But the truth of battle is that EACH and EVERY warrior must be highly motivated to transcend that which stands between him/her and his/her mission. That means, not only must chaplains (regardless of their personal faith) help Christian and Jewish warriors tap into their faith and strength therein, but they must help Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan soldiers find their strenth through faith. It is in the core mission statment of the Chaplains Corps. In other words, the chaplaincy must serve the needs of Muslim soldiers (whose numbers are, realistically, increasing). What better way to do this than to commission Muslim chaplains?

    Next on the pipeline are Buddhist and, yes, Wiccan chaplains, because the number of Buddhist and Wiccan soldiers has multiplied recently. Next, in line, (I’m assured by my chaplain friends) are Hindu chaplains. You all must realize that the military has a mission to accomplish, and it must do all that is necessary to accomplish that mission. In today’s modern America (which has increasingly become an “Other-than-Christian” nation) warriors come from all religious backgrounds. So, YES, the military should commission Muslim and other non-Judeo-Christian Chaplains not because it’s fair or equal or makes people feel good, but to aide warriors in accomplishing their mission to protect and defend this great nation and its beautifully diverse citizenry.

    -Satyakam

  26. DanC said

    YES should we allow Islamic chaplains in the U.S. military and we should allow them to run fore all elected offices. As well as all releigons and even non releigans. After three generations fighting in US wars for the blood money warmongers It is time to remember every citizen of the USA is equal by law. Even though our polititions do not searve the people as thry were elected to do. They searve power lobbys and israel spy networks, AIPAC does not lobby for the good of the USA. They lobby for israel ONLY.
    God willing we will get our country back real soon by dumping every incumbent that does not have a record of votes that do represent the will of the people.
    (there are veryprecious few of them)… Just keep dumping untill we get a majority of people that WILL do the will of the people with out the lip service and BS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: