Why new strains of fundamentalism are said to be gaining ground in the services
By B.C.
THE path from leaving Bibles in naval hotel rooms to placing weapons of mass destruction in the hands of religious zealots might seem rather a long one. But Mikey Weinstein, a former US Air Force captain who set up the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), argues with passion that both things are undesirable for the same reason, and both need to be opposed in the same spirit. His watchdog and campaign group has set itself the task of challenging a new variety of fundamentalism which it says is afoot in the services. It insists that America's armed forces, like every other form of state authority, must be religiously neutral in accordance with the Constitution.
One of the latest battles joined by the MRFF, and several other lobby groups, concerned the practice of leaving Bibles supplied by the Gideons, a charity which encourages the study of scripture, inside rooms in lodgings run by the navy. About a month ago, it emerged that Gideon Bibles had been removed from at least 3,000 rooms in navy lodges in response to secularist complaints. That in turn triggered massive protests from Christian and conservative lobby groups, and the Bibles were duly returned to the rooms. Mr Weinstein was disappointed: he insists that there is a real difference between making religious material available upon request at a registration desk, and placing such material—whether it be Christian, Muslim or even atheist—inside rooms. In his view, the latter practice indicates that the powers that be have taken the side of a particular religion, which the First Amendment forbids.
Whether Bibles are kept at registration desks or inside rooms may not seem all that big a deal. But the human stakes are higher in another religious-military row that erupted last month, when an atheist airman at a base in Nevada was denied the opportunity to re-enlist because he declined to say the words "so help me God". In an older air force regulation, it was laid down that those four words could be omitted on grounds of conscience; but this waiver was removed from a new rule issued last year—you either invoke the Deity or you cannot take up your responsibilities to the nation.
In Mr Weinstein's view, that change in the rules is a symptom of a new form of religious intolerance that has gained ground in the armed forces to the dismay of mainline Christians, among others. He calls the new religious mentality "dominionism"—a pejorative term for forms of Christianity that want to build religious principles into earthly power structures. One sceptical definition of "dominionism" describes it as "a theocratic view that...heterosexual Christian men are called by God to exercise dominion over secular society by taking control of political and cultural institutions."
Other signs of that mentality? An increasing number of cases where service personnel are bullied or denied promotion because they refuse to conform to the religious beliefs of their superiors. Very often the "superiors" are dominionist Christians—though it sometimes happens that a Christian soldier is bullied by an atheist superior, and the MRFF takes an equally dim view of that, says Mr Weinstein. The foundation says it has been approached by more than 38,000 service personnel, veterans or civilian defence workers with complaints about violations of their freedom to believe or not to believe, and 96% of these complaints come from Christians, many of them disturbed by extremist readings of their own faith which are being imposed on them in some way.
One example of Christians complaining about fundamentalism came in 2011 when 30 mostly Protestant or Catholic officers blew the whistle on a training course for nuclear-missile launch officers in California which drew on Jewish and Christian sources to vindicate the legitimacy of war. The course asserted that "there are many examples of believers engaged in wars in the Old Testament" and that "no pacifist sentiment [existed] in mainstream Jewish history." Whatever anyone may think about religious arguments for and against war, this is hardly a position which any arm of American authority can adopt without violating the constitutional separation between church and state.
Mr Weinstein insists that contrary to the stereotype some people might have, he is not a "Chardonnay-drinking liberal"—he is a Republican, and proud to come from a family with a strong military tradition. But he regards creeping fundamentalism as an impediment to a coherent military and hence a "national security issue". Besides, "mixing nuclear weapons with apocalyptic end-time theology is very dangerous." Even if they have an open mind about Bibles in hotel rooms, many people will say "Amen" to that.
