That last sentence strikes me as sad. If something is bad, it should be dealt with appropriately and if it was right, it shouldn’t ever come back to bite you.
You can always get the Inspector General and the Equal Opportunity office involved. I’ve been on the recieving end of asshole superiors too, and the two most hated of them got relieved of duty once their assholeness was exposed. I guess it is an issue if your entire chain of command is made up of jerkwads.
The problem is that people that are new to the military (privates, basically) are usually easy to scare by rank. They don’t report things because they fear reprisal or they are afraid that that no one will listen to them. I had a junior soldier tell once (after I helped get him out of hot water) that he was reluctant to come to me at first because he figured I’d just blow him off.
I seriously don’t see how this religious thing can work. I wouldn’t put up with it, and I hate confrontations.
Would be nice if the world worked that way, but it often doesn’t. This situation is not unique to the military.
Sure, that sounds pretty true-to-life, but it also sounds not that far from what he’s already contending with. Anyway, more adverse consequences just gives more opportunities to document unfair treatment, ITSM.
There have been similar stories coming about for several years about the Air Force Academy. If you google evangelical “air force academy” you’ll find a bunch of stuff daing back to early 2001. Wow, what a wild coincidence that the change seems to have coincided with the Bush years.
Let me ask the question in a different way. Is it your position that, if the military remains the choice primarily of conservative people, it is okay for it to also engage in the tactics described in the OP to make it a fundamentalist religious organization as well?
If that isn’t okay, but it does remain the case that mostly conservative type people want to join the military, who should make sure that a movement such as is described in the OP is stopped?
Not quite as simple as that, dontchaknow. I found the official report:
Damn that Bill Clinton! Filthy Baptist! 
Certainly not. But I think it would be a mistake to regard this as simply an isolated problem - it is a symptom of bigger problems with the insular military culture.
Well, I hope various chains of command would stop it, and if they don’t all of them should run into disciplinary actions for violations of civil rights. In addition, though, I hope people of all kinds, not just conservatives or poor people or working class people, would come to regard military service as something not only worthwhile in the abstract but something they might want to do.
I have a pretty balanced view on this matter overall - I don’t fetishize military service, I don’t consider it appropriate for everyone, I don’t think a draft is needed. But an America where virtually no Ivy League grads find their way into the officer corps is an America somewhat out of balance - and I don’t think you need to go too far out on a limb politically to make that observation.
But you seem to be blaming “liberals” for not joining the military. I think our misadventures (like Vietnam and Iraq) have a lot to do with why many people, especially “liberals”, are not going to sign up. So, maybe we should be putting the onus on our civilian leaders to:
- Stop engaging in wars of choice
and
- Take an aggressive stance to make sure that the military is not a hostile environment to those who aren’t evangelically inclined.
And it’s unclear to me how having more “liberals” in the military is going to prevent #1. So, let’s not go blaming those anti-military liberals for a failing of our civilian leaders.
A quick addition for those interested: Waiting to get my hair cut the other day I happened to read an excellent article on this same topic in an issue of, of all things, Details. It’s not online unfortunately, but the mag has Zac Efron on the cover and I kid you not that it has a long article on the topic.
Do these assholes try and convert the Iraqis as well?
Complete agreement, John, except that you misplaced your descriptor in one instance. Your first item should be:
- Stop engaging in wars of [strike]choice[/strike] aggression.
Mr Moto, I seem to recall your mentioning military service. Is it not true that one take an oath to uphold the Constitution? And if that is indeed the case, should not every alleged instance of such behavior be investigated, and if found valid, result in the cashiering of any officer, commissioned or non-, found to have acted in such a manner, and their dishonorable discharge and/or prosecution? Without the underlings being pressured into unchosen religious behavior having to painstakingly document and then carefully tread to avoid having it “boomerang”?
If not, why not? Or is this yet another attempt to put our Righteous Conservative Leadership above the law? (Diogenes was right; our attempt to blame lack of liberal enlistment, even if true, for this is an egregious example of blame-shifting. You might as well not have posted a word except, “But Clinton got a blowjob” – that, at least, is accurate and documented, and has precisely the same effect.
I’m OK with that. I don’t think there is a meaningful distinction between wars of choice and wars of aggression. But your descriptor is probably more to the point.
Isn’t it possible that your cousin just goes along with it and prays - whether due to belief or just not wanting to be hasseled?
-Joe
I read Moto as meaning that problems like nonconsential evangelicism are a symptom of the fact that our armed forces are a skewed cross-section of America. There is no implication of fault, as far as I can see.
And I think that point is correct. Religicos would be less pushy if the military culture were more diverse. And victims would be more confident reporting such abuse if they felt more likely to get sympathy.
Hardly. Every instance of this behavior? Dishonorable discharge? That, frankly, is nuts.
A dishonorable discharge is only imposed after a court-martial - and I think we all can agree that there are many instances where discipline can be imposed that won’t go this far.
I have an example - when I was stationed in Sicily I had an E-6 in my command (I was an E-4 at the time) attempt to convince me that my soul needed salvation. Now, he was free to do so to a point - he has First Amendment rights as well. But when I explained to him that I was OK trying to become a Catholic, and he didn’t stop, it went too far.
Now, he wasn’t one of my direct supervisors, but in duty sections and the like he was senior to me, so this was uncomfortable. But a mention to my division leading petty officer cleared the matter up - he told the guy to back off, and everything was cool.
Nobody was kicked out. No court-martial was convened. And the guy in question, true to his word, never became a pest again. We all just got back to work.
But even had he persisted, court-martial wouldn’t have been the next step. Probably the master chief would have intervened after this, and next would have come non-judicial punishment - where the CO takes away your pay and rank administratively.
So there is a lot that can be done, and should be done - but calling for discharges and prosecutions ain’t it. Better to beef up training, spell out responsibilities, and nudge your people when they’re heading out of line.
If you’re kicking people out and prosecuting them to a large extent, you’ve failed in leading and commanding them. You haven’t made their roles and responsibilities clear. And while I wouldn’t hesitate to prosecute someone if it goes that far, that’s the last resort, not the first.
Could the problem be that not enough liberals are signing up ?
No. The problems is that some very religious folks don’t know when to stop evangelizing. They shouldn’t need “liberals” around to stop them from doing it.
In fairness, the guy did say “people make mistakes”.