From Fox News, I found this article about a U.S. solider who is upset that an Army Chapel in Afghanistan is removing a cross. According to Commander William Speaks, "Military chapels have to be open to all denominations and as such can’t have permanent symbols of one particular religion or another." Commander Speaks is quite accurate in his assessment. Since the State needs as much cannon fodder as it can recruit, it is in the interest of State rulers no to offend any particular religious group. It does not matter if you are Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh Day Adventist, Jewish, Scientologist, Buddhist, Muslim, Agnostic or Atheist; all of you will do well as tools of oppression in foreign countries.
But what is depressing about this article is that there is no objection to a military chapel. Here's an excerpt:
Some conservative leaders said it’s proof of an effort underway to sanitize the military and country of Christianity.
“What’s the purpose of a chapel?” asked Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The timing of this – what a way to celebrate Thanksgiving.”
“There’s a sole purpose of a chapel and it’s to worship – whether it’s Catholic or Protestant. Americans who serve in the military are overwhelmingly Christian.”
The soldier said the military is not hostile towards religion. Instead, he called it a direct attack from secularists and atheists.
“If they are able to erase Christian symbols from the military, then it can be pushed to be erased in the private sector,” he said. However, rules are rules, he said – and in spite of his personal beliefs the soldier said he will follow Army regulations.
“As a soldier, I will follow the orders,” he said.
“My fight is not to have the cross put back up,” the solider told Fox News. “My fight is to have the regulation changed. My God is bigger than a wooden and I don’t need to defend Him.”
"If they are able to erase Christian symbols from the military, then it can be pushed to be erased in the private sector." I see two interesting points in this statement. First, why aren't Christians (other than libertarian Christians) fighting to erase Christian symbols from the military? The U.S. military does not defend the American public, but is an imperial force used to advance the interests of the political elite. The U.S. miltary does not protect our freedoms. So why would anyone who takes his Christian beliefs seriously want Christian symbols to be associated with violence and oppression?
The second point is that if Christian symbols can be erased from the private sector, who will do the erasing? Passing a law is not enough. There must be armed soldiers and policeman to enforce these laws. The soldier said that he would follow the orders. So if his government orders him to assist in erasing Christian symbols from the private sector, will he follow those as well?
This story is a microcosm of the problem with Christianity and the State. It's clear that many, if not most Christians in this country, cannot accept Jesus's teachings on nonviolence. Many believe that the State is God's tool to bring justice on earth. How they reconcile the necessity of violence with the teaching's of Jesus in their own minds is a mystery to me. But as long as they continue to do so, they will empower the State and weaken Christianity.
Comments