Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Those reports the other day about Marines handing out coins with Bible verses on them was just the tip of the iceberg. Jason Leopold provides the evidence that this is a much larger, coordinated campaign being orchestrated by religious right groups affiliated with the military. Look what they're saying to religious newsletters and websites:
A recent article published on the website of Mission Network News reported that Bible Pathway Ministries, a fundamentalist Christian organization, has provided thousands of a special military edition of its Daily Devotional Bible study book to members of the 101st Airborne Division of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, currently stationed in Iraq, the project "came into being when a chaplain in Iraq (who has since finished his tour) requested some books from Bible Pathway Ministries (BPM)."
And here's a soldier spilling the beans on the whole project:
Chief Warrant Officer Rene Llanos of the 101st Airborne told Mission Network News, "the soldiers who are patrolling and walking the streets are taking along this copy, and they're using it to minister to the local residents.""Our division is also getting ready to head toward Afghanistan, so there will be copies heading out with the soldiers," Llanos said. "We need to pray for protection for our soldiers as they patrol and pray that God would continue to open doors. The soldiers are being placed in strategic places with a purpose. They're continuing to spread the Word."...
In a newsletter published in 2004 by the fundamentalist group International Ministerial Fellowship (IMF), Capt. Steve Mickel, an Army chaplain, claimed that Iraqis were eager to be converted to Christianity and that he personally tried to convert dozens of Iraqis, which is also an apparent constitutional violation.
"I am able to give them tracts on how to be saved, printed in Arabic," Mickel said, according to a copy of the IMF newsletter. "I wish I had enough Arabic Bibles to give them as well. The issue of mailing Arabic Bibles into Iraq from the U.S. is difficult (given the current postal regulations prohibiting all religious materials contrary to Islam except for personal use of the soldiers). But the hunger for the Word of God in Iraq is very great, as I have witnessed first-hand."
Mickel evangelized Iraqis while delivering leftover food to local residents from his unit's mess hall. He handed out Bibles translated into Arabic in the village of Ad Dawr, a predominantly Sunni territory where Saddam Hussein was captured...
Llanos, the division's chief warrant officer, said about 2,000 copies of the military edition of the Bible provided to the 101st Airborne will soon be distributed to Iraqis.
Llanos should be immediately brought up on charges, as should every single soldier who has engaged in these actions. All of this is in direct violation of military regulations:
"Such fundamentalist Christian proselytizing DIRECTLY violates General Order 1A, Part 2, Section J issued by General Tommy Franks on behalf of the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) back in December of 2000 which strictly prohibits "proselytizing of any religion, faith or practice," said Weinstein, a former Reagan administration White House counsel, former general counsel to presidential candidate H. Ross Perot, and former Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG).
Politics
Comments
"I am able to give them tracts on how to be saved, printed in Arabic,"
I wonder if he handed out this one:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp
Posted by: Coragyps | June 2, 2008 9:49 AM
Yeah, that's what they say to your face, while you're giving them food, in uniform, and presumably armed.
Posted by: Dunc | June 2, 2008 9:59 AM
Christianity, these days it seems more about doing anything they think they can get away with to force their belief on someone else. If you haven't had enough food for days you'll say whatever you think will get you food to someone who brings in a crate of it. Add in the whole armed soldier thing and it becomes hard to believe that they're really that interested in becoming Christian, they just want to stay alive and get some food.
Gives the whole aid process a sheen of slime too adding in a religion that isn't already popular in the area. Like saying we'll give you aid, but we gotta be allowed to bring in this religion we haven't been able to get into your country before.
Posted by: Felstatsu | June 2, 2008 10:11 AM
claimed that Iraqis were eager to be converted to Christianity and that he personally tried to convert dozens of Iraqis
Doesn't this strike you as a contradiction? Iraqis were eager to be converted suggests thousands, tens of thousands. That he tried to convert dozens suggests otherwise. It sounds to me like he took their politeness, or their willingness to listen (for food for example) as eagerness to convert.
This is cute though, smuggling contraband into occupied countries in direct violation of the UCMJ and constitutional law in a manner that portrays our invasion of Iraq as a crusade. That's just f'ing brilliant. Why don't they start blowing up Mosques and using the Qu'ran for target practice ... oh wait...
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 2, 2008 10:12 AM
Onward Christian Soldiers...
Posted by: James Hanley | June 2, 2008 10:12 AM
Coragyps, did you read the article? They are handing out Chick tracts!
If those tame Danish cartoons caused riots, imagine what Chick et al. could do.
Posted by: jpf | June 2, 2008 10:32 AM
On the one hand, I'm just as opposed to all these conversion con-games as you are. I don't mind persons of faith doing good works abroad in the name of their God(s); but this bunch of God-botherers can't be trusted to have anyone else's best interests at heart; and their abuse of their military authority and power for that end is both un-Christian and wrong.
On the other hand, it's really not all that implausible to think that lots of Iraqis are just as sick of dumbass institutionalized Islam as we are of dumbass institutionalized Christianity. And when their Islamic state was conquered by a Christian power, they're bound to be impressed (whether they admit it or not) by the victors' culture, including our religions, just as many Japanese were impressed by American culture after we crushed and occupied their country (and just as we were impressed by their culture when they were kicking our asses on the trade front). So I really can't fully blame US soldiers for wanting to spread the word to people who appear to be in need of it. If I was serving there, I would, at the very least, be sorely tempted to try to refute the most dangerous and backward tenets of radical Islam every chance I get.
I'm not familiar with the law there, but it kinda looks like the Islamic establishment in that region bans any public advocacy of any other religion -- which is not something we're fighting to uphold. So when right-wing faux-Christian asshats like these try to oppose this intolerance, I'm really in a quandary as to which bad-guy to root for.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2008 10:35 AM
Ummmm....
You know what's worse than telling people about religion.
Killing people.
Like the dumbasses that join the army because they can't do anything productive with their lives.
Posted by: person | June 2, 2008 10:38 AM
This was in the plan at the beginning of the invasion. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, had volunteers for his group in Kuwait and Jordan for a number of months prior to the invasion with the idea that they would go in and do the food distribution. Along with the food, they would hand out Christian tracts. Only thing, the insurgency and instability foiled that plan, so they must have gone to individual soldiers to do their work.
Posted by: BC | June 2, 2008 10:49 AM
So when right-wing faux-Christian asshats like these try to oppose this intolerance, I'm really in a quandary as to which bad-guy to root for.
I feel your quandary. Christians (and any other group) in Iraq (or anywhere) should be free to proselytize and speak out all they want, and disobeying a theocracy is inherently a noble endeavor, BUT the Christians we are talking about here are part of an invading and occupying military force, which kind of changes things from both an ethical and a practical stand point. These Christians aren't there on their own dime and as independent representatives, they're there as representatives of the US and we need to keep them under control lest they screw things up more than it already is.
Posted by: jpf | June 2, 2008 11:00 AM
It sounds like ALL of you have a misunderstanding of what Christianity is. It's not a religion. It's the way we live. The first command is to love God. The second is to love others as we want others to love us. Then we're commanded to tell others about God's love and how He wants to have a relationship with us. Sometimes that love comes in the form of food or medicine. I many cases, you can just help a neighbor with something. Many times I don't say a word until someone asks, "why are you helping me?" Then I tell them. It seems to me you are all getting bent out of shape because men and women of the military are practicing their religious freedom -- something the United States of America was founded upon. We have the right to practice our faith, just like you have the right to speak openly against it. Interesting, though, our founding fathers would have bought the Bibles and sent preaches to help accomplish this mission.
Posted by: InHisService | June 2, 2008 11:07 AM
I call Poe's Law on InHisService.
Please let me be right...
Posted by: Adrian | June 2, 2008 11:17 AM
InHisService, any evidence for your words? What they're doing is not within their freedoms.
Have you ever heard of the Jefferson Bible? You besmirch our founding fathers character with your words. They were never in the business of Holy Wars. They came from a great many backgrounds, many of them deists. They would never, ever, support these actions.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 2, 2008 11:19 AM
Should Poe's Law not come through for us, some things worth noting.
Our founding fathers were mostly deists which has no book. They would've been willing to sit down and rationally talk with these people about their own belief with people who were interested, but even if they were Christians I doubt they would've condoned this type of distribution. Firstly, what's being done is illegal, and while the founding fathers had no problem with illegal actions, it was only actions that would add to or uphold freedom. This is simply forcing religion on people who already have a different forced religion, and is breaking the laws of the local people as well as the other military law mentioned.
I'm sure there's plenty of other problems with the situation too, but I'm rather not interested in looking into them, especially if Poe's law comes through.
Posted by: Felstatsu | June 2, 2008 11:38 AM
InHisService: Obviously you haven't bothered to read any of the actual post or article to which we are responding. If you had, you would understand that it is the perpetrators of this conversion/bullying effort to whom you should be directing your lecture, not us.
And no, "the right to practice your faith" does not mean the right to use taxpayer money, or abuse the authority of our elected government, as tools in your conversion campaign. If the DoD can't help spread my religion, then they can't help spread yours. Fair is fair.
Also, as DennisN very briefly pointed out, the Founding Fathers would NOT have condoned the use of state power to enforce any interpretation of any religion, even their own.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2008 11:38 AM
And even that's only partically correct. You (and all US citizens) have that freedom in the US. In case you haven't noticed, dumbass, the current situation in Iraq is not the same. Can you point to the clause in the Iraqi constitution that says foreign, occupying powers have the right to proselytize in their country?
I eagerly await your elucidation on the finer points of Iraqi constitutional law....
Posted by: FastLane | June 2, 2008 11:39 AM
Iraq wasn't really an Islamic state, any more than the US is a Christian nation. Saddam's government was one of the more secular in the region.
If there are so many Iraqis wanting to convert, though, why would Mickel have to say he tried to convert dozens? Shouldn't there have been more than dozens, and why was a unsuccessful?
Posted by: ShavenYak | June 2, 2008 11:43 AM
InHisService wrote:
Utter nonsense. You have the freedom to practice your religion, yes, but not if you are a government employee in the performance of your duties. A public school teacher may preach at their church, may talk to friends and acquaintances about God and so forth, but when they are in a public school discharging their duties as a government employee they are absolutely forbidden from proselytizing their students. The same is true in the military. A soldier is entirely free to talk about their faith with their family and friends and those they bump into, but not while actively acting as an agent of the government. Pentagon regulations forbid attempts to proselytize by soldiers on duty and those regulations are perfectly constitutional.
Even more nonsense. Perhaps you could try reading a little history before spouting off about it. The founding fathers did, in fact, battle against and negotiate with a predominately Muslim nation (the Bey of Tripoli, now modern Libya), so we actually have a record of their actions. They did not send Bibles and missionaries to them. Instead they negotiated a treaty to reassure them that America had no desire to convert them by stating:
That treaty was negotiated under George Washington, signed by John Adams as president, and ratified unanimously by a Senate that still included many of the men who had signed the Constitution.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 2, 2008 12:17 PM
And it's my favorite document outside the DoI and Constitution, followed closely by the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 2, 2008 12:19 PM
Ed, It looks like IHN may be alluding to an incident - one which your friend Chris Rodda fully debunks in her excellent book Liars for Jesus - which the fundies like to point to, that the US government passed a law that funded the printing of bibles. I don't remember all of the details of the debunking, but suffice to say, congress did not fund nor advocate for the funding of printing bibles as a governmental function.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | June 2, 2008 12:37 PM
Someone mentioned this on another thread a long time back, but I couldn't find it.
As I remember it, the bill was specifically about providing bibles to Indian reservations, however the Congress failed to pass it, presumeably because they didn't think it was the government's job to legislate religious belief, since it is a personal matter. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2008 1:04 PM
If we are talking about the same thing, my recollection is that the government was interested in helping the fledgeling domestic publishing industry against competition for Europe. The fact that the books being pulished was irrelevant.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 2, 2008 1:14 PM
Should have been:
"The fact that the books being pulished were Bibles was irrelevant."
Posted by: BaldApe | June 2, 2008 1:15 PM
"And when their Islamic state was conquered by a Christian power"
Actually Saddam's government was secular.
Posted by: SY | June 2, 2008 1:15 PM
[Moses returns from Mount Sinai caring two tablets]
Moses: Rejoice! The Lord God has given us these Ten Commandments by which to live.
Man in the crowd: Anything in there about not pushing your religion on others?
Moses: Um... no.
Man: Didn't think so.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 2, 2008 1:36 PM
Whenever you encounter the "Christianity is not a religion" argument, you know you're dealing with someone who will not listen to reasoned argument. By every definition (at least in the real world) Christianity is a religion but, of course, that would be lumping Christianity in with all those other "apostate" religions like Islam and Buddhism, and they can never agree to that.
Posted by: tacitus | June 2, 2008 2:06 PM
Let me get this straight: in a country where you can be murdered by roving militias for believing the wrong religion, this chaplain seems to think that he is seeing geniune interest in Christianity from the locals while he is handing out much needed food and water. Talk about naive - and stupid!
Posted by: sinned34 | June 2, 2008 2:37 PM
IHS, if Christianity is not a religion, in what sense are the soldiers trying to spread it exercising their religious freedom?
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 2, 2008 2:51 PM
The same sense that Intelligent Design isn't about religion?
Posted by: gwangung | June 2, 2008 3:41 PM
I made my whole chapter on "Congress and the Bible" available as a free PDF a while back when I needed to rebut some article or book but didn't have time to write anything. This contains everything about the two Congress and the Bible stories people have mentioned here, along with a debunking of some other related myths and lies. Here's the link:
http://www.liarsforjesus.com/downloads/LFJ_chap_1.pdf
Posted by: Chris Rodda | June 2, 2008 3:45 PM
"Ummmm....
You know what's worse than telling people about religion.
Killing people.
Like the dumbasses that join the army because they can't do anything productive with their lives."
Really? Because people who have served in the military have never done anything productive with their lives?
*sigh* What a fucking toolbag...
Posted by: Enigma | June 2, 2008 4:11 PM
And you can get that one in Arabic on the same website
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5199/5199_01.asp
I love it!
Posted by: Michael Svihura | June 2, 2008 5:28 PM
I salute you, noncarborundum. In all of the many times I've heard (and just tried to ignore due to its shear inanity) the "Christianity is not a religion" concept, I never noticed the blatant contradiction that arises when the same person repeating that nonsensical meme brings up his/her "religious freedom." Well spotted.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | June 2, 2008 5:32 PM
Lemme see - our enemies over there take every opportunity to accuse the U.S. of a crusade against Islam. They use that accusation to recruit additional "soldiers" to disrupt Iraq and directly attack our soldiers.
These nutbags are now providing substance to what would otherwise be a fairly baseless accusation. Forget violation of General Order 1A - how is this not considered "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"? Charge these fools with treason!
By the way, to "Person," who claims that I and my fellow soldiers and veterans are unproductive dumbasses - are you enjoying your freedom of speech in a nation unconquered by dictatorships over the last 232 years? You're welcome.
Posted by: BobApril | June 2, 2008 5:36 PM
I can't help but wonder if the reason so many right-wing religious conservatives oppose withdrawal from Iraq is that they feel it would diminish their opportunity to proselytize.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | June 2, 2008 8:28 PM
The irony of this type of behaviour is that it makes life more difficult for the Christian minority that already exists in Iraq. Recently a bishop was kidnapped and killed. So why contribute to already heightened religous tensions?
Posted by: Cheddar | June 3, 2008 12:39 AM
Article: "...he personally tried to convert dozens of Iraqis, which is also an apparent constitutional violation."
Maybe a violation of the Iraqi Constitution, but it is certainly not a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
But it is, as the article points out, a violation of standing orders.
Posted by: a lurker | June 3, 2008 1:08 AM
This perspective seems to be gaining popularity. I teach a course on world religions, and recently had a student explain to me, in all seriousness, that Christianity is not a religion. I didn't buy her arguments then and I don't now from IHS. They even use the same talking points: it's all about how you live your life, and has nothing to do with what you believe, according to them.
I think you're right in that it allows them to separate out Christianity, to label all other religions as nothing more than cultural institutions, and to promote Christianity as a natural, inherent part of being human.
Posted by: Chayanov | June 3, 2008 1:46 AM
In all honesty, I have never encountered this line of argument before. Based on my observations of the few fundamentalist Christians that I know/have known and the many that I have read/heard about, their religion is both a lifestyle and a very specific (and rigid) set of beliefs. According to these people, it is not enough to simply live a "good" life; one must also surrender oneself entirely to god and believe wholeheartedly in Jesus' supposed sacrifice. Sounds like a religion to me.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 3, 2008 2:47 AM
If Christianity is not a religion but a "way we live," then that makes it a *lifestyle choice.*
Seems to me the rightie-nutters say the same thing about homosexuality, as a basis for denying it protected minority status under the law.
Hmm!
Anyone really want to go there?
---
BobApril, thanks for saying that in more civil language than I was about to use, starting with calling that guy a "f---ing troll!"
---
OK, so why aren't these proselytizers being brought up on charges? They all need to face courts martial for violating standing orders. Particularly their commanding officers if it turns out they were complicit.
The guy who wrote that article talking about his own proselytizing activities has basically confessed to it, and it should not be hard to figure out who he is and throw the proverbial book at him. Start with that one and then go after the rest.
And this business of making food aid contingent upon being preached at is not only a court martial offense, it's also downright unChristian. These extremist nutcases are debasing the religion they claim to belong to. Or was that, lifestyle choice?
---
Obama is going to have quite a pile to clean up when he takes office. Almost to the point where it's worthwhile putting up a betting pool as to which pile he starts with first. Let's see... issue arrest warrants for Bushies before they flee the country... issue general orders to arrest and try soldiers engaged in proselytizing... cancel Bushie "signing statements" and executive orders found to violate the Contitution or the laws of the land...
Posted by: g347 | June 3, 2008 5:09 AM
Didn't Anne Coulter say "We should invade their [Arab] countries and convert them to Christianity"?
Anne must be proud.
Posted by: toby | June 3, 2008 6:17 AM
Whenever you encounter the "Christianity is not a religion" argument...
This argument is not at all new -- it's used by fresh converts to ANY religion to pretend their new-found faith is different from all others. The convert's belief is "living spirituality," everything else is just "dead religion." I occasionally hear roughly the same thing said at Pagan gatherings as well, though mostly not as an excuse to disrespect others.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 3, 2008 9:04 AM
I don't know what "person" originally meant, but I do get the impression that some in the US defence forces indeed are there not because they consider it to be an important duty, but because they had to choose between the Army and unemployment. To what extent their training makes them more aware of "why they fight" I dare not say.
Posted by: kai | June 3, 2008 9:21 AM
In His Service = IHS = In Hoc Signo (vinces). Good one.
Posted by: countlurkula | June 3, 2008 9:28 AM
a lurker:
Well, an agent of the United States Government, acting in an official capacity, using taxpayer-funded equipment and supplies, is promoting his religion by force of arms. I'd say that looks like a pretty clear Establishment Clause violation there.
Not to mention the argument made above that this constitutes treason in the form of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Treason happens to be the only crime explicitly defined in the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 3, 2008 9:46 AM
Phantom, there's no way that meets the standards for treason. They are very narrow. Doing something that indirectly gives aid to an enemy by acting like a caricature of yourself isn't treason.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | June 3, 2008 10:35 AM
"Doing something that indirectly gives aid to an enemy by acting like a caricature of yourself isn't treason."
Joshua, I think the point is arguable, especially in light of predeployment training in which the soldiers were TOLD that offending Muslim tradition and standards can negatively affect our efforts there. These troops had been made aware of the possible violent results from their proselytizing (admittedly, they may not have been paying attention), and they chose to do it anyway.
I would like the charge of treason ADDED to their courts-martial, along with violating a general order, and whatever other charges the military finds appropriate. Maybe they'll be found innocent of treason - they WON'T be found innocent of the rest.
Posted by: BobApril | June 3, 2008 1:50 PM
"they just want to stay alive and get some food"
In the Third World they're called "rice-bowl Christians."
South Park satirized this excellently: "See? ENGLISH plus JESUS equals FOOD!"
Posted by: JMarra | June 4, 2008 11:17 AM
Raging Bee,
I think the problem is less the message, which in a true democracy should be protected as free speech regardless of how offensive and idiotic it might be. The problem is the messengers who are armed, exert exceptional control over the populace and who, by virtue of their role as occupiers, pose a potential threat to the sovereignty, health and welfare of the populace. If Christian missionaries wish to proselytize in Iraq, more power to them. Having an armed military force do so is way too reminiscent of the Crusades for comfort, besides being illegal.
This meshing of our military with the more intolerant and frightening branches of fundamental Christianity (think Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs) is an ominous development. These folks feel absolutely justified and, in fact required, to convert to Evangelical Christianity by any means necessary. In fact, their personal salvation lies in fulfilling this primary obligation. In their belief system, they are answerable only to God and the laws of any man-made institution are optional. With this mindset, facts, reason and tolerance have no currency--all decisions can be made and justified based simply on their interpretation of God's will. And we have allowed these people to infiltrate the highest levels of our military and put them in charge of the largest and most lethal arsenal on the planet. We live in fear that militant Islamist's will get nuclear weapons, but seem oblivious to the fact that the unreasonable, fundamental elements of the Christian faith already have access to them. If we need to fear a theocracy in the West, it will be at the hands of Christian fanatics, not Muslim fanatics.
Posted by: Mickey | June 4, 2008 11:49 AM
Mickey - as others have pointed out earlier, this individual is a US Goverment employee, working in a foreign country, therefore constitutionally he is restricted as to what he can say and do, while acting as such. If he wants to take off the uniform, bullet-proof vest, leave the gun and hummer at home, any give out screeds in downtown Fallujah - he is free to do so. Surely his god will protect him, right? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 4, 2008 12:02 PM
It's long been the position of Christianity that a nonbeliever should be converted to a corpse or a Christian as soon as possible.
"I have witnessed this first-hand," too. It became apparent to me early in life that Heaven clearly has a VIP section for those who arrive bringing guests.
Posted by: Brian | June 4, 2008 12:14 PM
When you join the military you voluntarily leave behind all rights of free speech whenever you are on duty. Which, in a combat zone, is 24/7.
Frankly, this whole thing is stupid. We have scores of Southern Baptist missionaries in Arab countries and they are not allowed to openly proselytize. Why do these clowns think it's such a good idea?
Posted by: kehrsam | June 4, 2008 12:19 PM
And people thought that they were kidding when they were talking about an 'army for god'.
They are dead(ly) serious...
I hope I survive long enough to see the lack of a 'second coming' because they will only interpret it as there needing to be more people killed to satisfy their god...
Posted by: Pinky | June 5, 2008 10:34 AM