Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Remember Jeremy Hall, the Army Specialist suing the Pentagon after having a superior officer break up an atheist meeting group that had been approved by the base chaplain in Iraq? That lawsuit has been amended to add a new charge, that Hall had his promotion blocked because of his atheism. AP reports:
According to the lawsuit, Hall was counseled by his platoon sergeant after being informed that his promotion was blocked. He says the sergeant explained that Hall would be "unable to put aside his personal convictions and pray with his troops" and would have trouble bonding with them if promoted to a leadership position.
If this new allegation is true, the case is even more outrageous than it already was. This is clearcut discrimination on the basis of religion. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which is handling the lawsuit on Hall's behalf, issued a press release that quotes their founder, Mikey Weinstein:
"It is beyond despicable, indeed wholly unlawful, that the United States Army is actively attempting to destroy the professional career of one of its decorated young fighting soldiers, with 2 completed combat tours in Iraq, simply because he had the rare courage to stand up for his Constitutional rights and guarantees of separation of church and state against a superior officer who was forcefully attempting to intimidate him into accepting fundamentalist Christianity."
If this new allegation can be proven in court, that may be an understatement.
Comments
So... what if you are an Army Specialist who is a Wiccan? Would the Army halt your promotion to Sergeant because it is worried that you will lead soldiers off the path of righteousness?
Damn, but I really hate it when I read/hear things like this, and I agree that this is despicable on so many levels.
Posted by: Umlud | March 7, 2008 10:24 AM
Ihope they have some good documentation of this. I have know problems believing it, based on personal experience, but if it becomes a case of his word against his sergeant's, it may be difficult to prove.
We all know the wingnuts have no qualms at all about lying for jeebus.
Posted by: Fastlane | March 7, 2008 10:42 AM
I believe that the word "Asshole" was created specifically to refer to people like Hall's superiors. Also, pompous, cretins, douchebag and idiot.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 7, 2008 11:04 AM
My experience with many fundamentalist/evangelical types during 30 years of active duty as a Navy Chaplain was that they had little or no sensitivity for constitutional rights when "witnessing for Jesus." Most saw no disconnect between their lack of ethics and their employment of tactics based on an "ends justifies the means" mentality. As a Command Chaplain on at least 4 very large military bases I refused to let the Campus Crusade Military organizations come onboard and implement and inflict their obnoxious, narrow-minded, proselytizing, intellectually sophomoric programs on our personnel. They were and are anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, and generally speaking, anti-anything that doesn't conform to their views on religion. It really wasn't difficult to keep them off base. When they realized that I would not provide them with financial support from government and chapel funds, they disappeared in a hurry. Guys like Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, a Pat Robertson supported organization, love these nuts and the trouble they cause. These nuts are "cash cows" for Sekulow and his organization. It amazes me to listen to him talk about "law and justice" as he makes his plea for financial support by dealing in half-truths and misrepresentation of public issues. Carl Sandburg's poem, "To A Contemporary Bunkshooter," (1916) applies to these people today as much as it did to Billy Sunday in 1915. Sandburg says,
"You come along squirting words at us, shaking your fist and calling us all dam fools so fierce the froth slobbers over your lips . . . always blabbing we're all going to hell straight off and you know all about it."
"I've read Jesus' words. I know what he said. You don't throw any scare into me. I've got your number. I know how much you know about Jesus."
"You slimy bunkshooter, you put a smut on every human blossom in reach of your rotten breath belching about hell-fire and hiccupping about this Man who lived a clean life in Galilee."
There is much more in Sandburg's entire poem. I think he has captured the profile of these "Jesus people" in very telling fashion.
Norm Holcomb
CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret)
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | March 7, 2008 11:05 AM
Just to let everyone get a load of the officer named in MRFF's lawsuit, here's a link to his MySpace page:
http://www.myspace.com/freddywelborn
Chris Rodda
Senior Research Director
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 7, 2008 11:38 AM
What particularly bothers me about seeing such anti-freedom attitudes in the military is the absolute hypocrisy of it all. The hawks and chest-thumpers all want us to believe that they are fighting for "freedom and democracy" for all, and yet they really don't want any of us to be free if that freedom actually allows us to follow our own ideas. And yet, if you tell the fundamentalists "no" they are the first ones to bring up their own First Amendment rights. Religious freedom has to be true freedom -- the freedom to believe as you are led even if that means believing in nothing at all.
Posted by: Liz Machunis-Masuoka | March 7, 2008 12:17 PM
" Who I'd like to meet:
Presidents G. Washington, Abe Lincoln,& Ronald Reagan, M.L.K. Jr & Robert E. Lee (same birthday), and General Jackson, and D.L. Moody."
He claims to love this country then as a typical ignorant southern Nationalist fu#k, also loves those who fought actively to destroy it and keep blacks in slavery. Can you imagine how utterly stupid an individual has to be to claim to want to meet both Martin Luther Kind Jr and the two men who fought to keep his ancestors in slavery!
This idiot will probably go to the Expelled movie and credulously buy Stein's arguments that Darwin is the origin of racism. He probably actually believes Jackson and Lee were good Christians as well!
Posted by: OMM0910 | March 7, 2008 12:51 PM
Let me get this straight. Someone who cannot put aside their own convictions to let an athiest solider alone expects atheists and other non-Christians to put aside their convictions to pray Christian prayers with their troops or else lose their military careers.
Can you say "hypocrite", children?
Posted by: Elaine | March 7, 2008 12:55 PM
I had a long military career and am now recently retired. During that career I never encountered anything of this sort. In fact I saw many religous groups represented at, meetings, and even public events on base. If this indeed did happen it was the action of an individual or individuals and not the policy, written or unwritten of the US Military. I found the military to be a very tolerant place to be when it comes to religion.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | March 7, 2008 2:22 PM
AFSGTSAM:
You are kidding, right? While I appreciate your experiences, the rabid Christianity in the military is rather well documented.
Posted by: WBPNYC | March 7, 2008 2:27 PM
This is the kind of thing that is going to vary greatly in different military units. I don't doubt that Sam never ran into any discrimination, but that doesn't mean others haven't. The attitude of the officers and chaplains in each unit are going to determine the atmosphere in that unit. Some are going to respect the religious differences of those under their command and some are not. The problem is that the military has long tolerated this sort of thing in certain units rather than bringing it to an end. None of this is at all unusual. the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has received literally thousands of complaints from active duty military personnel over similar situations. The trouble, of course, is that for someone on active duty, coming forward with such a complaint can be highly dangerous to one's career.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 7, 2008 2:33 PM
As an active duty soldier here's my view. Realizing of course that the plural of anecdote is not data.
Religion is just assumed in the Army. While there is a decent chunk of us that are active atheists or just plain don't care, I've seen plenty of guys that would certainly have held it against me that I'm an atheist, I've just been fortunate to have superiors that were concerned with my ability not my beliefs.
When it comes to this spc's promotion...unless his leader was completely stupid the spc will lose that part of the case. While it's easier today to get promoted than ever, it's still not a right, it's a privilege. They won't have documented it as his atheism is the problem, they'll frame it as his personal views are interfering with his work. They'll say his views are the one causing problems at work and that he can't leave it at home. Of course the truth doesn't matter, all that matters is what's been put down on paper. It's not like you can ask his fellow soldiers to speak on his behalf when they have a perfect example in front of them of what will happen if they stand up to this chain of command.
Once again, I would hesitate to say religious discrimination is rampant in the services. The system is just set up to make whistle blowing hard under any circumstances for any reason.
Posted by: Laen | March 7, 2008 2:52 PM
CAPT Norm Holcomb
I totally absolutely disagree with the Campus Crusade hard core Arminian theology and with their so-called carnal-Christian focus. However, they are not anti-Catholic, nor anti-Jewish, except in the modern sense that if they think they are right and the Catholics and Jews and Mormons and JWs are wrong (news at 11), then they must be anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, etc. To me, your statement, which I quoted, renders you a rather stupid person and a garden variety bigot. There are, I suspect, quite a few soldiers who are aligned with the CCC theology, and I can't believe you decided for them, with smug temerity, that you would withhold access to people who may have provided familiar comfort. I am certainly glad you are retired, because I believe, if your post is an accurate indication, that you abused your position in behaving like a little itty-bitty Napoleon.
In case it is not clear, I fully support taking forceful and appropriate disciplinary action against any individual who in any manner discriminated against a soldier because of that soldier's atheism.
Posted by: heddle | March 7, 2008 3:14 PM
Laen, I tend to agree while most of my military experience is with the Air Force the climate is the same. The problem is not religous intolerance on a large scale as much as the difficulty moving a legitemate complaint up the chain of command. Who are they gonna believe a young Airman or a LtCol with a long military record. Ed, while I find it probable that there have been many complaints over the years I still hesitate to paint with a broad brush. Even a few thousand complaints and assuming even half are legit in a military of several million does not reflect as a whole on the military. But Ed, yes it is true each unit is only as good as its commander and chain of command and how they deal with this stuff generally is at their discretion. I can only site my own experiences as a Jewish person who had a 20 year military career but of course I am one person.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | March 7, 2008 3:50 PM
>>" Who I'd like to meet:
>> Presidents G. Washington, Abe Lincoln,& Ronald Reagan,
>> M.L.K. Jr & Robert E. Lee (same birthday), and General
>> Jackson, and D.L. Moody."
He claims to love this country then as a typical ignorant southern Nationalist fu#k, also loves those who fought actively to destroy it and keep blacks in slavery. Can you imagine how utterly stupid an individual has to be to claim to want to meet both Martin Luther Kind Jr and the two men who fought to keep his ancestors in slavery!
In all fairness, although I would have been fighting on the opposite side had I been alive at the time, Robert Lee had many admirable qualities and I would love to meet him too.
Why do some people insist that a person is either 100% good or 100% evil?
Posted by: tonyl | March 7, 2008 4:01 PM
They just need to put him in a foxhole. Have they even tried that? People...
Posted by: Dumpy | March 7, 2008 5:05 PM
Re OMM0910
To be a little fair here, Thomas Jonathan Jackson was from what became West Virginia and owned no slaves. Robert E. Lee was a gradual emancipationist who thought that slavery should be phased out.
Posted by: SLC | March 7, 2008 5:54 PM
heddle said:
"However, they are not anti-Catholic, nor anti-Jewish, except in the modern sense that if they think they are right and the Catholics and Jews and Mormons and JWs are wrong (News at 11), then they must be anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, etc."
I find this statement confusing. You seem to be confirming exactly what I said. I'm surprised that you think that my statement "renders me a rather stupid person and a garden variety bigot." Frankly, I think the statement is easily understood, to the point, and profound in its simplicity! And to the contrary, I was a force protecting personnel from the bigotry reflected in the unbridled insensitivity of those who would use any tactic to "win souls for Jesus." We have chaplains of every variety on active duty and it is their responsibility to minister to military personnel according to the guidelines established by Congress for providing ministry in a pluralistic environment. Those para-church organizations seeking to peddle their views on government reservations neither knew nor cared about respecting the rights of others. I too am glad that I am retired! And a very good retirement it is!
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | March 7, 2008 5:55 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this part is itself odd? Atheists can't meet as a group unless the chief theist approves?
Posted by: James Hanley | March 7, 2008 6:00 PM
Regarding something someone mentioned about the number of complaints, MRFF has only existed since 2005, and has already received over 7,000. 96% of these have come from CHRISTIANS, many of whom are being told that they are not the right kind of Christians or not Christian enough.
As far as Campus Crusade's Military Ministry goes, the following report should give you an idea of what their goals are and just how big a problem their large-scale, unrestrained presence on our military bases is:
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/six-month-report-2007/six_month_report2.html
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 7, 2008 6:24 PM
Regarding something someone mentioned about the number of complaints, MRFF has only existed since 2005, and has already received over 7,000. 96% of these have come from CHRISTIANS, many of whom are being told that they are not the right kind of Christians or not Christian enough.
As far as Campus Crusade's Military Ministry goes, the following report should give you an idea of what their goals are and just how big a problem their large-scale, unrestrained presence on our military bases is:
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/six-month-report-2007/six_month_report2.html
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 7, 2008 6:24 PM
Chris Rodda:
Thanks for providing the link to the military religious freedom report. I was aware of the report and it certainly reflects the behavior and tactics of the Campus Crusade Military Ministry representatives with whom I generally had contact. To state that they are not anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, etc. ("except in the modern sense" - whatever that means!) is nothing more than a disingenuous exercise in semantic gymnastics. The Roman Catholic chaplains with whom I worked frequently voiced their concerns regarding complaints of Catholic personnel who were told (by these CC types) that they were "going to hell" because they were Catholics. Nevertheless, it may be that "heddle" (who called me stupid) may have more experience with the military environment and guidelines governing religion in the military than do I.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | March 7, 2008 6:53 PM
CAPT Norm Holcomb,
If you think I am confirming your position, you are wrong. You seem to concur with my mocking of your position. That is, if the CCC believes that they are absolutely right and Catholics, Jews, etc. are wrong, that does not make them anti-Catholic or anti-Jewish. If they believe that Jews are going to hell because they don't accept Jesus, that does not make them anti-Semitic, it makes them dogmatic which is completely different. Now if they argued that Jews should somehow be discriminated against, that would make them anti-Semitic.
If you kept all religious groups from having access to the troops, then it is hardly worth your unseemly bragging that you prevented the CCC from having access. If you decided, on your own, that some religious groups could have access to the soldiers but not the CCC, because you don't like them, even though literally tens of millions of Americans (I'm not one of them) profess essentially identical theology to the CCC, then you are in fact guilty of the bigotry you attribute to them, and you are, in my opinion, a disgrace to your commission. But maybe I misunderstood your claim.
Posted by: heddle | March 7, 2008 7:54 PM
Heddle - I think you are overly critical. Morale is an important part of military governance and if the Captain thought that the CCC was doing more harm than good for his men, than I respect him for protecting his personnel from harassment.
Posted by: JoH | March 7, 2008 8:06 PM
Regarding the denial of promotion: When I was in the Air Force in the 1970s, enlisted personnel promotion was based on job test scores, time in service and time in grade. The numbers were added up and you either made the cut or you didn't. That was supposed to be an improvement over the more subjective method that had been used in the past.
Did the armed forces go back to the old way? Or did the Army never switch to the numbers-only method? Anyone know?
Posted by: Gerry L | March 7, 2008 11:54 PM
It is a fundamental Constitutional principle that the Government can only legislate actions, not beliefs. Heddle, in his posts, deliberately confounds the two. While I cannot speak for CAPT Holcomb, everything in his posts appeared to be addressed not to the beliefs of the CCC personel but to their behavior. A chaplain, to the best of my knowledge, serves as a counselor, chiefly to those of his faith, and, to the extent his religion requires it, as an administrator of the rites and sacraments of that religion. The CCC apparently is not in the business of counseling so much as proselytizing, and particularly obnoxiously at that. It was their actions, not their beliefs, that were found intolerable.
I, like James Madison, believe that the existence of chaplains in the Armed Forces (and the Congress) is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. However, the First Congress (incongruously enough, the same one that formulated the Bill of Rights) decided we should have them, so here we are. But surely, if we cannot have a consistently Constitutional nation, we can at least have a civil one.
Posted by: tim | March 8, 2008 1:34 AM
GerryL
The Army has a points system to get promoted but it is not based on testing like the Air Force. It's based on civilian/military schooling, awards, skill badges, PT scores, rifle qualification, and a couple other odds and ends. You still need your commanders recommendation and a recommendation from the board. The board consisting usually of several first sergeants and the battalion CSM. Up until last year you got actual points for you appearance in front of the board. None of which matters if you are getting bad counseling statements or NCO'ers from your lower chain of command and NCO support channel. Those would prevent you from being made eligible for promotion.
Maybe one of you Air Force guys could comment. In the Army it would be unusual, other than actual UCMJ action, for a platoon sergeant to be counseling a specialist. That sticks out to me in the story.
Posted by: Laen | March 8, 2008 5:06 AM
tim,
I agree with you, on this point, but strongly disagree on this one:
Of course Capt. Holcomb has the fiduciary responsibility to protect troops from mistreatment.
But look closely at his reasons. He said
While I have no doubt he despises the CCC's proselytizing, this made it clear to me that first and foremost he despises their beliefs. He went above and beyond to tell us what idiots they are and didn't spend a whole lot of time addressing their behavior. He sent the clear message, at least to me, that he simply doesn't like their brand of fundamentalist Christianity.
Most Jews, I would speculate, when considering a conservative Christian who thinks they are hell-bound, would not consider them anti-Semitic on that basis. They might consider them crazy--but mostly they would consider them wrong, the same way that I consider a typical Moslem wrong but I don't consider them anti-Christian. A thinking Jew they would no doubt even understand why the person felt the way they did--why the plain-reading of their holy book might have led them to hold such a view. They would, again I am speculating, reserve the anti-Semite designation for people such as those who blow up Jewish seminaries.
Now I certainly think that there is a threshold. I agree that Capt. Holcomb should keep groups that recuit Moslem terrorists, or white supremacists, or abortion clinic bombers away from the troops.
However, he has more or less equated the CCC with this type of group. I have no familiarity with their military wing, but I have all manner of familiarity with the civilian CCC. Do they proselytize? Of course. Are they fundamentalist? Yes they are. Are they anti-Catholic? Only in the sense that they believe they are right and Catholics are wrong, not in the sense that they advocate discrimination against Catholics. And, most importantly, like or not, their theology is, arguably, as mainstream as any theology in America could be labeled mainstream. Holcomb, it appears, likes to brag that he kept them away from the troops and as much as I dislike the CCC I think that is wrong.
If Holcomb had stated, plain and simple, that he kept the CCC off base because of their aggressive proselytizing I would not have commented. But, at least to me, he made it clear that he had and used the power to keep this particular group, one that is in fact, again like it or not, almost as American as apple pie, off base simply because he doesn't like them. He boasted about it.
For some reason that really pushed my buttons.
Posted by: heddle | March 8, 2008 7:05 AM
I honestly can't believe people are defending the CCC. Imagine that a Muslim group of clerics, who stated their purpose was to advance their ideology into every branch of the military, imagine if they stated that anyone who didn't believe as they did was wrong, evil, and going to hell, and the military let them on base to proselytize? Yet, when its Christianity, everyone jumps on the "rights" bandwagon. Funny, how those rights usually only extend to fundamentalist Christian groups, but no one else.
Posted by: sabrina | March 8, 2008 7:54 AM
By the way, Capt. Holcomb is not a bigot. His actions in not allowing the CCC to disrupt his bases, which would only single out Catholic and Jewish personnel, as well as non believers, shows that he is the kind of Christian chaplain everyone should aspire to be. I imagine his men were grateful to have someone like him on their side, as opposed to a crazed Jesus-spouting bible thumping radical. If the military had more men like Capt. Holcomb organizations like the MRFF would not be needed. Thank you for your service Capt. Holcomb. I may be an atheist, but I respect the job you did, as well as the thoughtful and respectful way you carried it out.
Posted by: sabrina | March 8, 2008 8:05 AM
Where did he equate the CCC with terrorists and white supremacists? I read no such thing. What an incredibly dishonest and mean-spirited thing for you to write. (But really, this is quite typical from heddle.)
Look, you both agree that they are anti-'other religion', at least in the minimum way that they think they (CCC) are right and all the others are worshipping God incorrectly. But the CCC goes further and makes a huge issue out of it... they don't care about helping others who don't believe the same way they do, they only care about converting them. Aren't they supposed to be there to provide emotional support to those troops who use religion as a crutch for such support? And isn't telling these religious 'others' that they are worshipping their God incorrectly very much against the concept of providing this emotional support?
So the question becomes, does the CCC have a right to use military resources and support to prostelyze these people from other religions? (No.) And if they insist on doing so, then the good Capt has a duty to protect those on his base from the CCC.
This isn't some case of the Capt just randomly deciding to persecute those poor, defenseless Christians of the CCC.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 8, 2008 8:44 AM
I have news for you. Any group that proselytizes has as their goal the conversion of everybody. They may be more circumspect that the CCC, but they share that goal. That is the very purpose of proselytizing. Moslems, mainstream evangelicals, Mormons, JWs--they all have as their goal the conversion of everyone, including you. Furthermore, nice, well-behaving Moslems, while they may not be in your face about it, also think you have a very unpleasant afterlife in store for you and do not, in all probability, think very highly of your morals.
Thus, if you or Capt. Holcomb think no proselytizing group should be allowed on base, then at least you are consistent. If you allow some proselytizing groups on base, but exclude one that is as American mainstream as the CCC, then you are being hypocrites.
And nobody is arguing about their rights. In fact when it comes to the question of "rights violations" I have, in one celebrated case ridiculed the same fundamentalist Christian soldier that Holcomb is noted for criticizing. I am not condemning Holcomb because he violated the rights of the CCC, but because he apparently, based on his bragging, decided they couldn't have access because he despised their beliefs. That, in my opinion, makes him a garden variety bigot and a disgrace.
Posted by: heddle | March 8, 2008 8:49 AM
doctorgoo,
You failed, perhaps with malice aforethought, to connect any dots. I said that I agree that some groups (e.g., those who advocate abortion clinic bombings or violence toward homosexuals) are obviously lunatic fringe enough that it is responsible to exclude them. But the CCC is so mainstream that they certainly do not fall into that category.
The gist of my argument is: if any military resources are used for any proselytizing group, then there is no sane reason to exclude the CCC as they are doing nothing that any other proselytizing group would not do, and by doing so you are implicitly equating them with groups like those I mentioned.
If no proselytizing group was allowed on base, that is fine with me--but then Holcomb didn't need to go out of his way to brag about why he excluding the CCC bumpkins. He clearly implied that this particular group, which at its heart is perhaps only guilty of not being as clever as other proselytizing groups about hiding their motives, was excluded because of their beliefs--beliefs that are shared by a huge number of Americans. The widespread support for the CCC theology does, in my opinion, like it or not, count for something. That is if you allow any such groups on base you should, it stands to reason, allow one of the most popular among the people footing the bill.
You grossly and childishly mischaracterize them based on my experience, which is more than considerable, with the civilian CCC. They proselytize, yes. But they also do substantive charity work, and as part of their missionary work dig wells, build roads, etc. Do you think they only allow converts access to fresh water from the wells they dig? Only converts are allowed on their roads? I don't know one person of the many I know involved with the CCC who would not care to help someone who didn't convert. You are arguing against a crude caricature, the same one that Holcomb perpetuated.
Posted by: heddle | March 8, 2008 9:13 AM
Heddle, while in theory you are correct, it does tend to conflict with my reality. Some of the things I've dealt with in my short Army career.
1. Nicely dressed gentlemen wandering around post that ask me if I'd like to go to their church on Sunday and offer me a ride if I need one, and then leave me alone when I decline. I have zero problem with these people.
2. Posters put up in public areas offering weekend retreats for religious couples with or without children. They didn't have an answer for me when I asked if a single parent could attend...but none the less it was a public area, and they weren't forceful so I have no problem with them.
3. Posters put up in our company area for a specific church. This one was borderline, not against the church, but against it being put up. I never saw any other type of posters save Army backed MWR/Boss program offerings posted there. To be honest though I never asked to post anything so it might have been an option for others too.
4. A CCC sponsored drink tent/table at a brigade manditory fun day. Now there were business's there giving away stuff too, but they were the only religious group I saw. Borderline again.
I say these things are borderline because while in theory some things are open to any religion, reality shows only the "good" religions will be allowed. Hence why I believe in a complete separation between church and state, allowing any church starts the question of what is a church.
p.s. While I have never met my current units Chaplain, I had many a great discussion in garrison and in the field with my last unit's Chaplain. He was what I would consider ideal for the position, very supportive of the men, but only brought things up in religious terms when the men brought it up first.
Posted by: Laen | March 8, 2008 9:58 AM
Heddle,
The role of Chaplain is most appreciated in the form of support. Military personnel have enough to worry about wothout having additional pressure imposed on them through proselytizing. I can see you don't buy that the Capt did this for his troops but given the discriptors and the fact that he is not the only one to witness such behavior by the CCC, I still believe that the best interests of the troops were served and all of the "good" activites are meaningless if the behavior doesn't match.
Posted by: JoH | March 8, 2008 10:15 AM
Heddle doesn't seem to understand that I have no quarrel with CCC doing anything they want to do in the non-military world. I speak from the perspective of the military and the good order and discipline that is required in the military. Heddle's "more than considerable" experience with civilian CCC does not make him knowledgeable of CCC and other para-church groups in terms of their involvement with the military.
Heddle, your arrogance is evident in every post you make. I had no intention of picking a quarrel with anyone. I simply intended to succinctly offer insight from my more than 30 years of experience with these matters - and my experience involves interface with many para-church groups, not just CCC.
You are obviously not a very accomplished reader. In one fell-swoop you have labeled me as stupid, a bigot, a braggart, and a disgrace. I think my record of service from my days as a young Marine infantryman in Vietnam until my recent retirement proves my commitment to my God, my church, my nation and my fellow human beings.
Heddle, it is so easy to call people names via long-distance modes but not so easy when you are looking that same person in the eyes. You work at Christopher Newport in Newport News and I live in Virginia Beach. We are within one hour of each other. Would you be interested in having a face to face meeting with me and personally confirming your opinion that I am stupid, a bigot, a braggart, and a disgrace? I have known arrogant, smug, argumentative people like you throughout my long, respected and successful career serving this nation and the citizens of this nation (in accordance with the laws of the land respecting the pluralistic composition of the military; which you obviously don't understand). I am aware of previous posts you have made on this site and fully understand your method of operating. You try to verbally bully people and in so doing you achieve your goal of obfuscating a participant's point of view. I am retired and with the exception of a few dental and medical appointments scattered through the month, I am available.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | March 8, 2008 11:05 AM
Capt Holcomb,
I am always interested in meeting new people. I'd be happy to meet with you any time. As for someone who called the CCC "obnoxious, narrow-minded, intellectually sophomoric, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jewish" (based on that which you call "insight") your accusations of my arrogance via long-distance name-calling are, at best, a blatant example of pot-kettle-black.
Please keep in mind I'd have no quarrel with you if you had stated "I decided to keep all proselytizing groups off base, period." It was your bigoted name calling, and your braggadocio and your arrogance that got me riled up in the first place.
I would have been just as pissed if you had stated "and I did my best to keep the godless amoral atheists off the base."
As for your career as a soldier, I salute you. Your career as a base chaplain however, based solely on your post on this thread, leaves a lot to be desired, in my opinion.
Posted by: heddle | March 8, 2008 11:40 AM
Heddle:
God forbid that any of us should get you "riled up." Of course I applied the same requirements regarding every group that wanted to come on base. You seem to overlook the fact that I mentioned that it wasn't difficult to keep them off base because when I would not/could not fund them with government and chapel funds they disappeared on their own. Funny how their interest in ministering to the troops declined when they were told that they wouldn't get funds to support them.
For the most part they are not seminary trained and have no graduate education in biblical studies and theology. Of course, religion is the one area where anyone can claim knowledgee based on experience and establish themselves as "called to preach" and "called to ministry." I doubt that you would let someone take over your physics class solely on the basis of similar credentials. It would appear to me that you would assume some responsibility for the students under your charge.
And, I do agree with your observation about the "pot calling the kettle black." Also, isn't it true that Christopher Newport has had its own problems with fundamentalist groups stepping on the rights of others on campus? And by the way, do you really think it's possible to define the honor and success of a 33 year career "based on your post on this thread?" You simply want to argue, Heddle; and yes, I am willing to travel to Newport News to meet you.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | March 8, 2008 12:03 PM
Capt. Holcomb,
No, it is not proper to define your career based on the post on this thread, you are correct about that. That is all I have to go by, alas. And your original post was so anti-evangelical/fundamentalist Christian and so-over-generalizing about their "lack of ethics" that I could hardly believe it. It was not your professional concern for your charges that came through in that post, it was your disgust with the "anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish" theology of the CCC that came through. But maybe it is only my lack of reading ability, as you suggested.
I am not aware of any problems with fundamentalist groups on CNU's campus "stepping on the rights of others," but then again I have only been there (or rather I have only been back after a seven year hiatus) since January.
I do not simply want to argue. I read this blog everyday, and I probably disagree with 75% or more of the comments. That is a lot of opportunity to argue, if all I wanted to do was argue--but only once in a while, maybe once every couple weeks, someone makes a comment that crosses my threshold.
I have to say that I don't believe that the CCC would not come on base at all if they were not given funds--that they ran away, by implication, as soon as they realized their avarice would not be fed. The civilian CCC is so filled with zealous proselytizers who will take any opportunity to witness, that I find it doubtful that if you told them "you are welcome to come by on your own dime and talk to any troops interested in talking with you" that they would have replied "well, show me the money or I'm outta here." I simply don't believe it.
Posted by: heddle | March 8, 2008 12:25 PM
Having re-read my posts I could not argue with the criticism that I was out of line. I would like to apologize for the harsh insults--but of course the damage is done. What I would like to do is start over and ask Capt. Holcomb to explain on what basis does he believe the CCC is anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish.
Posted by: heddle | March 8, 2008 1:12 PM
Heddle:
Apology accepted. Our comments increasingly became "ad hominem" attacks instead of a rational focus on the original issue. I'm not sure that you understand the legal requirement for pluralism in all matters concerning religion on a military base. Of course, that does not apply to regularly scheduled worship services that are listed as "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, etc.). Chaplains receive training regarding these requirements and are required to observe them. Civilian groups coming onboard have no such understanding and feel no compunction of conscience about violating our required pluralism.
You are certainly free to believe what you want to believe but it is absolutely true that when I gave no financial support at the last 2 bases where I served, the para-church groups dried up and disappeared. Are you not aware of the fact that the designated leaders of these groups are paid personnel and that they are required to collect funds and forward them to their headquarters to generate funds for their own support?
I have supervised fundamentalist/evangelical (and I consider myself to be an evangelical) chaplains who were of the same mindset as the civilian CCC and other para-church groups; however, they ministered within the guidelines of government pluralism and military chaplaincy. I did not mean to suggest that these types were "anti" in the sense that they would discriminate and persecute those of other faiths or no faith at all. Theologically, it would be difficult to not define/describe them as "anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-Wiccan, etc. When you presume to go into a person's work space, living space and recreational space and say words to the effect of, "You worship Mary; you believe in purgatory; you pray to statues; you worship the Pope and you are going to hell unless you ......(fill in the blank yourself)", then I think it fair to say that you are anti-Catholic. In addition to being a Chaplain, my oath of office as a commissioned officer requires me to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That defense includes protecting personnel from those who would abuse religious privileges and violate any person's right to freedom from and/or freedom for religion.
I expect that you may interpret my next statement as "bragging" but I want to point out that I have supervised more than 230 chaplains at one time (really, a quite impossible task and I'm not sure that St. Peter could be successful at this!). This number included Catholics, Jewish Rabbis, Muslims, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostal Holiness, and others too numerous to name. My fitness reports and my reputation among these different groups reflect the opinion that I was never a bigot, "garden variety" or other.
I realize that my initial post was somewhat acerbic in its descriptive posture. Allow me to comment on those descriptions:
1) Obnoxious - Most rational folks that I know would consider it obnoxious behavior to have a zealous person telling them what they ought to believe and assuring them that they would go to hell if they didn't change their beliefs.
2) Narrow-minded - a literal interpretation and application of biblical texts that have more than one perfectly defensible interpretation. I was once in an 8' x 8' room stacked floor to ceiling with ancient Greek texts of New Testament books, many of which had several variant readings of the same texts. I found that most of the CCC types ignored 2,000 years of church history and had no concept of the decisions of the great councils and the writings of the church fathers. It is as if they do not recognize that people other than Christians populate the world.
3) Intellectually sophomoric - some of the above applies here. I have witnessed "Bible studies" where a passage of Scripture was read and everyone around the room commented on what they thought it meant. Typically, the resulting attitude was "Oh good! We all think it means something." Also, much of what took place was memorizing scripture verses. Now, I am not opposed to memorizing scripture - my paternal grandmother required me to memorize most of the Psalms and my maternal grandmother required me to memorize most of the Gospels. However, according to education experts (harking back to my days in teacher training), rote memory is the lowest level of learning. Rote memory must be raised to the affective level of learning for maximum results. In my experience, the para-church groups lack any kind of training in the study of theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, biblical ethics, etc.
4) Proselytizing - This needs no explanation - the long and the short of it can be summed up in their zealous intent to proselytize. Chaplains are required to provide for the needs of all and are not permitted to use tactics that are perfectly acceptable in the civilian world.
Of course CCC and others do good things in the world, and of course they permit non-believers to use the wells they dig and so on and so on. I am not arguing against that fact but I am honestly stating that we cannot justify their tactics on military bases simply by applying that model.
In my retired civilian capacity I freely evangelize and, as you suggested in a previous post, probably do some proselytizing also. I feel perfectly free to do this as a civilian and I feel perfectly free to boldly state the doctrinal and theological beliefs and positions of my church. However, as a chaplain and naval officer I accepted the constraints applicable to religion and pluralism in the military environment and so far as my authority extended I enforced the same. If that makes me a stupid, disgraceful braggart and bigot, then so mote it be! Heddle, I suspect that we are not so different in an intellectual commitment to the truth. Our one obvious difference may be that I claim no learned expertise in your chosen field of physics. However, as I mentioned earlier, anyone can pick up a Bible and claim expertise in the world of religion without paying the hard price of graduate studies and actual pastoral work in serving people in very difficult environments.
Peace and Grace
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | March 8, 2008 2:33 PM
This story from today's NYT seems on-topic here:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/us/08chapel.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
I have to wonder, though, how a statue of Christ somehow found it's way into the 11:00 Protestant sermon. I take it the chapel in question is non-denominational.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 8, 2008 3:01 PM
I think that the bottom line here is very simple. Groups and individuals have no more right to proselytize on a military base then they have to proselytize in a public school. Apparently, the purpose of this CCM organization is proselytizing. Therefore, Capt Holcomb was doing his duty by, in effect, telling this organization to get lost. Period, end of story. Prof. Heddle, as usual is way off base.
Posted by: SLC | March 8, 2008 3:16 PM
SLC - I agree, but Heddle did apologize and admit he was out of line - he deserves at least a little credit for that since many bloggers would never admit being wrong ;)
Posted by: JoH | March 8, 2008 3:23 PM
Capt Holcomb,
Personally, while I am not at all aligned with the CCC theology on any but the broadest terms, it has been a while since I encountered a CCC trained evangelist that used the "Mary Worshippers" (and similar) characterizations of Catholics or as tactics in witnessing to Catholics. I still hear that from run-of-the-mill fundamentalists, but not from the CCC trained staff I know--all of whom are well educated people who tend to be intellectual rather than overbearing. Maybe the CCC sends their "B" team to the bases, because the people you describe are nothing like the ones I know--and haven't been that way since the 80's.
I am glad we agree that the CCC is not anti-Catholic or anti-Jewish in the sense that they do not advocate discrimination against those groups. I will continue to argue that their position that they understand the route to salvation to be rather exclusive is not an inherently unreasonable one, and such exclusivity is rather common among evangelicals of all religions.
SLC,
If you bother to read what I wrote, you'd see that I stated that it would be fine (with me) if no proselytizing group was permitted on base, but that if any were permitted, then so should the CCC, given that it is the largest missionary group in the US and hence supported by (literally) tens of millions of Americans. By the way, CCC is in public schools--so I don't think you are making the point you intended.Posted by: heddle | March 8, 2008 6:16 PM
Re Heddle
"By the way, CCC is in public schools--so I don't think you are making the point you intended."
As usual, Mr. Heddle misses the point. The CCC or any other such organization is prohibited from coming into the public classroom and proselytizing students. If Mr. Heddle has information that the CCC is, in fact, doing just that, he should immediately inform the FBI as it is a violation of the 1st amendment. Capt. Holcombs' point is that the CCC is an organization that apparently does not agree to refrain from proselytizing and therefore he told them to get lost.
Re Capt. Holcomb
Capt. Holcomb, if he is not already aware of Prof. Heddles curious views, should be informed that the latter is an old earth creationist who rejects the theory of evolution, even though he has not a jot or a tittle of expertise in the area. Just as an aside, my PhD physics thesis adviser was also an old earth creationist with the same last initial as Prof. Heddle.
Posted by: SLC | March 8, 2008 7:57 PM
SLC,
You are wrong again (it seems to be a habit with you), I do not reject evolution.
Posted by: heddle | March 8, 2008 8:40 PM
SLC:
Thanks for your input; however, I have said all that I care to say regarding the subject. I can't make it any clearer than I have regarding the issue of religious pluralism and the military. It is a simple fact that not everybody is suited for ministry in a pluralistic setting. The military does not employ chaplains to "evangelize" the troops. Our job is to care for all. Persons who are "hell bent" on saving people from hell do not do well in the military chaplaincy and usually don't survive a 20 year career. This doesn't mean that they do not love God and are not good Christians; it simply means that they do not have the aptitude to provide ministry in a pluralistic setting. My experience has been that the confusion and trouble they cause far outweighs any good that they do.
Hear endeth my comments. I am going to watch my alma mater Dukies take on the Carolina Tarheels!
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | March 8, 2008 8:56 PM
Dang, I was beginning to like CAPT Holcomb, then he goes and cheers for Duke.
Oh, well, at least he's cheering against the Tarheels.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 9, 2008 12:13 AM
My Dukies lost. Not a surprise. Carolina is a better team this year. Hansborough is an absolute beast. UNC vs UCLA for the championship, I think, if the brackets work out that way. And Love vs Hansborough should be a hell of a battle in the middle.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 9, 2008 12:54 AM
Again I segue into the OT.
Capt. Holcomb - forgive my ignorance. Are you like (the fictional) Lt Mulcaidy on MASH? Are you trained to give last rites and so on to people not of your own faith in emerancies? - curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 9, 2008 8:17 AM
DingoJack:
Yes, I am trained to do that but have never had to do it. I would do that only after having exhausted every possibility of finding someone of that particular faith group. I don't have a problem with co-existing with my fellow human beings who happen to believe or not believe as do I. While I am a Christian, I consider myself to be more of a "Christian Humanist" than a dogmatically driven zealot who has to defend God. Long ago I subscribed to the phrase of the Latin poet, Terence who said: "I am a human, therefore nothing human is foreign to me."
Can't believe that Duke went 5 minutes without scoring after taking the lead! I knew we were doomed when Henderson missed an easy put-back which would have put us up by 4 points. It's not over yet but I have had no illusions about winning the national championship.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | March 9, 2008 9:10 AM
Re Heddle
"SLC,
You are wrong again (it seems to be a habit with you), I do not reject evolution."
Apparently, Prof. Heddle has changed his position over the last 2 or 3 years as he used to claim that he was an old earth creationist. If this is indeed the case, I stand corrected.
Posted by: SLC | March 9, 2008 11:12 AM
SLC: I can't speak for Dr. Heddle, but he does claim to be an Old Earth Creationist, yes. I believe his point was that this in no way requires the rejection of evolution.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 9, 2008 1:08 PM