Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
We already knew through the work of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation that there were American Christian groups urging their followers in the military to try and convert the Iraqi people from Islam to Christianity (one group actually had permission from the Pentagon to send care packages that included Arabic translations of the Bible). Here's a report that they're actually doing it. Excerpt below the fold.
At the western entrance to the Iraqi city of Fallujah Tuesday, Muamar Anad handed his residence badge to the U.S. Marines guarding the city. They checked to be sure that he was a city resident, and when they were done, Anad said, a Marine slipped a coin out of his pocket and put it in his hand.Out of fear, he accepted it, Anad said. When he was inside the city, the college student said, he looked at one side of the coin. "Where will you spend eternity?" it asked.
He flipped it over, and on the other side it read, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16."
"They are trying to convert us to Christianity," said Anad, a Sunni Muslim like most residents of this city in Anbar province. At home, he told his story, and his relatives echoed their disapproval: They'd been given the coins, too, he said.
And this is not isolated:
Now residents of the city are abuzz that some Americans whom they consider occupiers are also acting as Christian missionaries. Residents said some Marines at the western entrance to their city have been passing out the coins for two days in what they call a "humiliating" attempt to convert them to Christianity.In the markets, people crowded around men with the coins, passing them to each other and asking in surprise, "Have you seen this?"
An investigation has begun:
"Iraq is investigating a report that U.S. military personnel in Fallujah handed-out material that is religious and evangelical in nature," said Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll , a U.S. military spokesman, in a statement e-mailed to McClatchy . "Local commanders are investigating since the military prohibits proselytizing any religion, faith or practices."
This just underscores how important the work of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is. This kind of thing has to stop immediately. Those soldiers who are doing it need to be punished under military regulations. And those groups who are encouraging this need to be kept as far away from the military as possible.
Politics
Comments
As I have said many times before on this site, I spent a great deal of my time as a Command Chaplain countering the divisive and illegal tactics of para-church groups trying to use the U.S. military as a base for obnoxious evangelistic propaganda. Several months ago I pointed out that the situation is far worse than is generally understood by those outside the military. Recently, on this site, a participant took me to task for pointing out the problems caused by such groups as Campus Crusade for Christ Military Ministries. I think the person had good intentions but failed to see the legal implications attending to religion in the military and religion in secular society. Over the years it became clear to me that many of these hyper-evangelistic types were totally unethical in the way they did business. For instance, "lying for Jesus" is not bad; in fact, it's good if it "wins souls for Christ." While railing against social vices that have no connection to any concept of biblical salvation, they spout volumes in support of their own rules of petty morality while violating the basic foundation upon which all trust is based -- that of truth. Dealing with them is a study in frustration. If left unchallenged, they intensify their efforts via all that is negative in the concept of crusade/jihad. When challenged, they assume the posture of martyrs who are being persecuted for serving Jesus Christ. I expect that things will get worse and may never get better. It takes courage to enforce the laws that were created to keep this kind of religious nonsense in check.
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret)
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | May 31, 2008 10:14 AM
I find this absolutely appalling.
It's like the Crusades all over again...and we know how well those worked out.
Posted by: Neviditelny | May 31, 2008 10:23 AM
In any case, I personally can't help but wonder if the war in Iraq was itself religiously motivated, at least in part.
Posted by: Togusa | May 31, 2008 10:49 AM
Of course the war in Iraq was religiously motivated. It's just that the 'god' in this case is the almighty dollar, and the 'natural superiority' of the white race.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | May 31, 2008 11:23 AM
Perhaps, boys & girls, we should help the neocons
spell it, C-O-U-N-T-E-R-P-R-O-D-U-C-T-I-V-E.
Way to capture hearts and minds, guys. Idiots! -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 31, 2008 11:37 AM
I don't think that you'll be able to keep the Republican party as far away from the military as possible.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | May 31, 2008 12:40 PM
How can it be communicated to the "Christian Soldiers" doing this that they are provoking a backlash that will get them, and their buddies, killed?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 31, 2008 12:55 PM
Pierce-
Bring them up on charges. What they are doing is a flagrant violation of military regulations. I'll have more on that on Monday.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 31, 2008 1:06 PM
Oh, man. I can really see a Shi'ite storm starting in Iraq over this. As touchy as much of the Islamic world is about religious matters, this could really upset things. And, to tell you the truth, I can understand the Iraqis being upset about something like this. The Pentagon really needs to nip this in the bud QUICK.
Posted by: Mobius | May 31, 2008 1:17 PM
I guess there isn't a law against proselytizing in Iraq like there is in Turkey. I was stationed there in 1986 and we got briefings out the yazoo about stuff you couldn't do and say there. AFAIK, those things haven't changed.
Because of that experience, I got the impression that Muslims are very much offended by proselytizing. That was before I knew that apostasy could get a Muslim killed, too. It's just mind-boggling that our troops are doing this in Iraq!
OT, but I just want to say that despite all of that rigamarole, I really enjoyed my 10 months in Diyarbakir. The people were warm, friendly and interested in all things American. I'd love to take a vacation back there if I can ever afford to.
Posted by: twincats | May 31, 2008 1:43 PM
This problem goes way beyond the individual soldiers themselves. Many of the institutions of the military--the Pentagon, the Air Force Academy, etc--have been promoting Christianity for some time now. When soldiers are inculcated by their superiors with an evangelical mindset as part of their training, it's no wonder they think they should play out the part of a missionary when on duty. I'd bet this is primarily a top-down problem. While it would be temporarily expedient to punish the individual soldiers for violating military codes, a long term fix would have to involve changes at the top.
Posted by: Wes | May 31, 2008 1:46 PM
I thought the military pretty much allowed religious freedom within its ranks? And I thought that the job of the military was to prosecute the wars it is commanded to prosecute(setting aside the morality of any given war for the moment), not proselytize "enemy" civilians? While Muslims recognize Jesus as one of the prophets that preceded the final prophet, Muhammad, it's the height of arrogance, IMO, for these characters to use religious freedom within the military as an excuse to go out and try to "bring the heathen to Christ". Muslims are not "heathens", despite what these characters may think. They believe in the same deity as Christians and Jews. But then, their ignorance is appallling. And their "notions" do indeed have their roots in the Crusades. . . .which didn't work.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | May 31, 2008 2:24 PM
This is pretty disturbing, seems that American Empire is Christianizing and culturizing. Probably the only way it can survive as any kind of Empire in an era where global politics is based on cultural divisions.
Posted by: Trevor | May 31, 2008 2:40 PM
Comparing this to the Crusades is taking it a bit far. The Crusades were about genocide and theft, not conversion. Richard the Lion-Hearted executed thousands of muslim p.o.w's, in violation of the surrender conditions of the city of Acre, simply to speed up his march towards Jerusalem. During the first and Second Crusades, Europeans, thinking that rubies were produced by a diet of spicy food, slaughtered whole villages and towns looking for valuable gems in Levantine stomachs. When the second Crusade took Jerusalem, they put every citizen they could lay their hands on to the sword. These are but a few of the many, recorded atrocities committed during the crusades, who can say how many more went unmentioned and unremembered. The crusaders didn't care about saving the souls of the "heathens"; they just wanted to kill them and take their land.
That being said, their behavior in the Levant wasn't all that different from their behavior in Europe, which says something about how psychopathic the European aristocracy was, and how cheaply Europeans in general valued life at the time. Even 4 centuries later, during the 100 years war, the Plantagenet armies were routinely beheading Valois-loyal civilians and sticking their tarred heads on spikes along city walls to intimidate possible rebels and attackers, among other things. This pathetically arrogant attempt at proselytizing is most certainly wrong, foolish, and potentially disruptive, and the attitude it betrays is definitely akin to that behind the few cases of random, unprovoked shootings that have come out of the Occupation so far, but we've done a decent job avoiding Crusader-like behavior.
Posted by: Julian | May 31, 2008 5:28 PM
We had to really wrangle in a few of the evangelicals in our AO. It didn't take much for them to cross the line and when you're trying to build relationships with the locals, build trust and show them that you're not the evil infidel, proselytizers screw things up. It's like taking one step forward and two steps back. And sadly, some of them JUST DON'T GET IT, thinking it's some kind of freedom of speech issue. Every incident led to a pissed of Civil Affairs NCO yelling "you're fucking with our mission!!!"
Posted by: Brando | May 31, 2008 5:34 PM
Julian - Barbaric behavior throughout history has not been confined to Europe. And Christians have nothing on Muslims when it comes to militant proselytizing. There's a reason it was called "the flaming sword of Islam".
Posted by: Taz | May 31, 2008 5:42 PM
Whether or not there's a law about proselytizing in Iraq, twincats, it's still taxpayer money funding these operations, and everyone isn't paying to push some individuals' beliefs. When you represent America, you represent all of us.
Posted by: Utah | May 31, 2008 7:47 PM
I do hope you're not implying that our military's proselytizing would be perfectly acceptable as long as the Iraqis worshipped some other god, or twenty gods, or no god. That would, in my humble opinion, be wrong.
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 1, 2008 12:33 AM
Julian -
The crusades weren't just about genocide and theft. Yeah, that occurred and was horrible, but the crusades were about religion and politics. The crusades first took place right at the end of the dark ages - things were really screwed up from the fall of the western Roman empire til about 1000 AD. In early Christian dogma, it was generally believed that the second-coming of Christ would be just around the corner, and when the western Roman empire fell in 476, eliminating the over-arching, 'stable' institution, things went to shit. People honestly believed that Christ would be returning very soon, and when the millennium rolled around, and there was no second-coming, people went a little crazy, and did things like self-flagellation, etc, to show that they were penitent.
When Alexius, the emperor of the eastern Roman empire (which didn't fall until 1453), requested military help from the Catholic Church, it was spun by Pope Urban II as being all about religion and rescuing the holy land from the infidels, instead of just a request for more military back up.
Posted by: Neividitelny | June 1, 2008 12:53 AM
When I use the term 'infidels,' in my previous post, it's not what I believe. It's what Christians at the time (and probably, some still do) believed.
Posted by: Neviditelny | June 1, 2008 12:56 AM
In early Christian dogma, it was generally believed that the second-coming of Christ would be just around the corner
Er... "early" Christian? I seem to recall that about 40% of Americans believe that the world will end in our lifetimes.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl6.htm
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | June 1, 2008 1:01 PM
First off, I never said Europeans were the only bad people at the time, I just said they were warmongering psychopaths which, when referring to the ruling class of the day, is generally true. Its true that they offered justifications for their constant warring, things like "he's got a nice bit of land" or, "she's unmarried and I'm just protecting her family's wealth", or "he takes a heretical mass", and that they called these reasons politics, but the real reason was that Europeans of the time were only a handful of generations removed from barbarians and they felt the best way to solve any problem was to fight about it. The Arabs of the time were just as recently removed from a similar past, though considering the Arabian peninsula's long importance in international trade and extensive metropolitan past, they possessed a history which glorified bloodshed slightly less that that of the Franks or Visigoths. Their practice of generally allowing peoples of other faiths to live unmolested, as opposed to rampaging through their settlements every few years, bears that out.
On the issue of the crusades, I know that they began as a request for aid by the emperor in Constantinople, and that, to the Pope, they were a chance to expand Catholic Christendom. My point is that, to the people who were carrying them out, neither of those points mattered. To them, it was about doing in the Near East what they'd been doing in Europe since they'd overran the Roman Empire; killing people for land, money, and the joy of it. If you wish to argue that the Crusades served the geopolitical purpose of aiding Constantinople, then why did the first begin with a siege upon that city, and the last end with a Christian army sacking it? If you wish to argue that it truly served to expand the faith, then you must explain why no lord involved spent any significant amount of time or energy to accomplish that and why the only pseudo-religious orders active in the Holy Land were the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaller; both of which were private armies and both of which exclusively served the faithful, not the potentially faithful.
What purpose did any European monarch have in going to the Holy Land? To win the favor of Rome? You could do that much more easily and cheaply by endowing a few churches and licking the Pope's feet, instead of burning his city as many tried and did. To prove your faith to the people? What did they matter to a monarch, or any noble? The people were there to work; they were slaves to be used as you saw fit(which is why, at the time, they were still serfs tied to the land and legally owned by their lord). What nobles deigned to even consider them human most certainly didn't extend that to worrying about their opinions. To them, only other nobles and specific important towns mattered, because those were the only people who could challenge them. To protect the Faith? Considering the amount of competition and rivalry that existed between the See and every proclaimed King, the frequent attempts by lords to establish pilgrimage sites within their own lands, and the constant Bulls issued by the Pope proclaiming his total political and religious dominance (something which would not have been necessary if it were recognized) I highly doubt most nobles really cared that much more for their faith or the pilgrims on the Jerusalem road than they did for their own fortunes.
The Crusades were merely the first international example of what the Europeans had been doing at home, and in a few centuries would attempt on a global scale with cannon and sail, compass and opium; namely, pillaging and conquering anyone weaker than they to fund bigger armies and a more extravagant life. It was a grasping attempt at military dominance that served no one's interests but those of the individual nobles who undertook them.
Posted by: Julian | June 1, 2008 8:08 PM
Utah, I never meant to imply that I in any way think that the behavior of these particular military members is okay, just that a law such as Turkey has would put the kibosh on their antics in short order.
It's unbelievably arrogant of these military evangelists to be doing what they're doing for all of the reasons that have been noted here; but one of the worst things, IMO, is that they are cordially inviting Muslims to come to Christ and become martyrs because that is what it can easily amount to in a part of the world where apostasy = death.
Posted by: twincats | June 1, 2008 8:45 PM
It should be pointed out that these people probably think this is the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis... once they experience God's Love, they'll ditch that nasty false prophet and become good Christian Americans.
Posted by: wazza | June 2, 2008 2:43 AM
Wow - when I was in the Marine Corps in the 80's, this sort of thing would have gotten me booted out - and justifiably so! - with a quickness...That's tantamount to incitment to commit murder.
What the Hell has happened to the American military in 20 years?
Posted by: Where's My 'tini? | June 2, 2008 9:23 AM
th'n'q!S1S
Posted by: netlog | January 24, 2009 12:59 PM