For the past several years, two U.S. Army posts in Virginia, Fort Eustis and Fort Lee, have been putting on a series of what are called Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts. As I've written in a number of other posts, "spiritual fitness" is just the military's new term for promoting religion, particularly evangelical Christianity. And this concert series is no different.Soldiers who refused to attend the concert were harshly punished:
Those of us that chose not to attend (about 80, or a little less that half) were marched back to the company area. At that point the NCO issued us a punishment. We were to be on lock-down in the company (not released from duty), could not go anywhere on post (no PX, no library, etc). We were to go to strictly to the barracks and contact maintenance. If we were caught sitting in our rooms, in our beds, or having/handling electronics (cell phones, laptops, games) and doing anything other than maintenance, we would further have our weekend passes revoked and continue barracks maintenance for the entirety of the weekend.With the extant culture war bubbling, one wonders about the importance of nationalism in maintaining American predominance. From a logical standpoint, nationalism represents an admittedly vapid ideology often embraced by those eager to coopt others' achievements. But the pragmatic needn't always conform to the logical and in this instance, one could argue cogently that nationalistic memes sustain civilization.
In general, palpable narratives consumed by the masses must involve the concept of divine providence. It is this moral supremacy that foments loyalty and dispels skepticism amongst potential dissenters. Fittingly, the military has been at the forefront of these transparent displays of religiosity. If we send these men to die, we better inculcate them with the idea that their sacrifice is worthwhile, that they're fighting on the side of good, that they hold the moral high ground. By punishing these concert absentees, the military protects a groupthink mentality that substantiates presumed American virtuousness.
A Republican candidate opines on this issue's larger importance:
"We have two competing world views here and there is no way that we can reach across the aisle -- one is going to have to win," Fleming said.Of course, the left eagerly repudiates American morality. Their opposition to this transparent military display of Christianity derives from the idea that America rarely takes the position of moral good. To deconstruct a national narrative, one starts by destroying the mythic folklore of that nation. We're not recipients of a Manifest Destiny or the singular arbiters of good; we're merely a base and selfish brand name unworthy of its exalted status. Based on this mendacious premise, the left argues for extirpating our supposedly morally empty nation.
We are either going to go down the socialist road and become like western Europe and create, I guess really a godless society, an atheist society. Or we're going to continue down the other pathway where we believe in freedom of speech, individual liberties and that we remain a Christian nation. So we're going to have to win that battle.
So do we yield on the religious issue, trading a decidedly Christian ethic for greater national solidarity? Or do we relinquish the romance of American moral preeminence and welcome a proxy ethics based on limitless social justice? I'll go with the former, but only if we get rid of anything like this.
Update: Minor clarifications.
28 comments:
"We are either going to go down the socialist road and become like western Europe and create, I guess really a godless society, an atheist society."
Sounds alright to me.
I saw this news item a couple of days ago in the media.
I hate to say this, but we wouldn't be for Iran making its military recruits listen to a particular Iman would we?
This is the logical extension of allowing both mass immigration from the four corners of this planet and religious freedom: you are going to have hindus, muslims, sihks, shintos, buddhists, atheists, wiccans, agnostics, deists, and other groups who do not agree with christianity or judaism. They will resent being made to attend any kind of religious service that is not their own, and pay any sort of reverence to a god they dont believe in.
At this point, most of the recruits in the military are more economic refugees than anything. They are in the military because of lost jobs and zero opportunities out in the real world for kids with IQs in the 80's-90's and low 100's. They really dont want to be in the Middle East fighting.
The military slyly points these kids towards rapture reverends who tell them things like "God will allow the United States to be destroyed for not protecting Israel" (listen to any John Hagee sermon), and that we are called to the middle east by the Lord at this time for a reason (to bomb them sensless I guess).
The US has been in Afghanistan much longer than they were in WW2 or WW1, and we have had 1000 suicides in Afghanistan alone. I think our military is getting exhausted in fighting peoples who didn't attack us (and never could have attacked us if our people were allowed to vote on our immigration policy....because the attackers wouldn't have been here physically in the first place).
Im aghast that the same military that forces kids to go to Christian concerts under penalty is the same military that inflicts Nadal Hasans upon them (he shot what? 32 people) and doesn't listen to military personel when they complain about a Hasan making threatening statements about his intentions. We are trying to make Christain-soldiers/Crusaders out of rural white kids while doing the exact opposite with our educational/immigration policies. You dont have to be all that smart to point out the hypocrisy.
Of course, the problem is the assumption that there is only one form of Christianity, the Evangelical Protestant kind. The actual article states that several of the soldiers who refused to go were Catholic, and I imagine that they might have had serious doctrinal objections to such an event. As a conservative Episcopalian, I might have, myself. I'm certainly not anti-Christian, but I'm sorry, mandatory attendance at these concerts was simply inappropriate, and I'm stunned that the officers responsible couldn't see that. All this does is give ammo to the anti-Christian, "Evangelicals are America's Taliban" crowd. "Spiritual fitness" is between a man, God, and his spiritual adviser/clergyman. It's outside the military chain of command, or at least it should be. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the liberals are right on this one...
Tschafer
@ Underachiever:
I understand the "godless, atheist" part, but the socialist, universalist Western Europe part is an acceptable concession??!
I'm sorry, mandatory attendance at these concerts was simply inappropriate
I agree that mandatory participation was absolutely wrong. I should have included this in my post. But that wasn't the crux of my argument.
We are trying to make Christain-soldiers/Crusaders out of rural white kids while doing the exact opposite with our educational/immigration policies.
My main argument wasn't in regards to the military (that was one just one example of how religiosity motivates), but moreso the larger nationalistic idea.
Anyone here ever been in the military?
Mandatory R&R is common.
The punishment was not harsh. Boring, yeah.
You have to follow all orders, including annoying ones. You give up many of your rights when you sign up.
Don't want to? Don't sign up.
If our poor kids in school have to go to mandatory liberal BS sessions day in and day out, then our warriors can probably brave a concert for a few hours.
Bunch of candy asses.
It is almost hard to believe that guys who can't handle music and ideas they don't like are going to hold up well to savages shooting at them.
Just when you think you have seen it all.
No strength in diversity.
"palpable narratives consumed by the masses must involve the concept of divine providence."
This is the philosophy of Leo Strauss, who argued that the masses be taught "truths suitable for children" (aka "noble lies") and only the elite get unvarnished facts.
I'm not sure if it's hypocritical for a devotee of Straussianism to be a public race-realist (puncturing one of the "noble lies" of the left), or merely ironic.
"It is this moral supremacy that foments loyalty and dispels skepticism amongst potential dissenters."
The abdication of truth destroys moral authority. Christianity can't form the moral core of the United States going forward. Its errors are too well-known to be taken seriously by all, its orthodoxy too restrictive to allow growth (it would stagnate like Islam), its major social organizations too corrupt to be allowed any secular power.
"Fittingly, the military has been at the forefront of these transparent displays of religiosity."
It violates every member's oath of service vis-a-vis the Constitution.
"To deconstruct a national narrative, one starts by destroying the mythic folklore of that nation."
It's impossible to construct a pure and unopposed narrative of lies in the Information Age. The Left's is being deconstructed before our eyes. Repeating their mistake means taking ownership of their failure.
"You have to follow all orders, including annoying ones."
Attendance at the concert was explicitly not an order.
Cynical
The military is full of OVUM activities.
"Of course, the problem is the assumption that there is only one form of Christianity, the Evangelical Protestant kind. The actual article states that several of the soldiers who refused to go were Catholic, and I imagine that they might have had serious doctrinal objections to such an event. As a conservative Episcopalian, I might have, myself. I'm certainly not anti-Christian, but I'm sorry, mandatory attendance at these concerts was simply inappropriate, and I'm stunned that the officers responsible couldn't see that. "
Agreed with you. Why are they always so adamant upon promoting militant Protestant Evangelism at the expense of other Christian faiths? I could definitely see why Catholic/Episcopalians/mainline Protestants wouldn't wish to attend along with the non-religious folks.
The Military does not accept low IQ folks, anon. Except, for non-Whites which it will take in some numbers.
The military attracts guys who are mostly White, seeking an alternative to the cubicle culture, with above average IQ, and the ability to seek out and wreak violence upon the enemy. Basically your boy scout who likes guns and blowing stuff up.
Even during the worst casualties in Iraq in 2006, during a fairly decent economy, the Marines had no problems attracting top quality recruits. Yes its hard for the "America sucks" Left to accept that some guys like to go out and fight, but they exist and must exist for a nation to find defense in a fragile, power-shifting world.
The military is dominated by Evangelical Southern Christians because that's who joins. My father's side is from border state Evangelicals, so I know the mentality fairly well (a number later became Mormons). The religion is as much a social bonding institution as abstract, individual belief. Thus Southern/Border State Evangelicals seek to replicate the bonding exercise because for them it works well.
"If our poor kids in school have to go to mandatory liberal BS sessions"
I should make it clear that I'm against that too - far more than I am any sort of Christian activity, Evangelical or otherwise. But I still maintain that the military promoting one specific form of Christianity is inappropriate. And yes, I'm sure that our guys can handle it - but what happens when our President, in order to show "sensitivity", orders our troops to attend a Muslim Khutba, or a Buddhist Ti-Sarana? Should they have to, even if it violates their conscience? I'll bet a lot of evangelical Christians would object,and refuse, and rightly so. Ditto these guys. Trust me, in this liberal, "multicultural" society, allowing the military to promote a specific religion is going to end up bad...very bad.
Tschafer
My father's side is from border state Evangelicals, so I know the mentality fairly well (a number later became Mormons).
Doesn't the entire HBDosphere think you're a Jew?
Trust me, in this liberal, "multicultural" society, allowing the military to promote a specific religion is going to end up bad...very bad.
Very good point, but just because progressives can possibly subvert something positive doesn't mean we should abandon it. What's the alternative? No religion and thus no presumed moral superiority. Military guys like to blow people up, but even for the most macho, this type of activity can weigh on one's consciousness if they don't think they're on the right side.
As for my point concerning the promotion of Christianity and our moral superiority in a general, non-military context (i.e. Manifest Destiny), what are your thoughts?
I think you've got the role of religion in recent wars completely wrong. When Germany's soldiers sported belt buckles declaring "Gott Mit Uns", did the USA fight alongside the Wehrmacht? No. Moral superiority had a completely different origin—and it was a secular origin.
Being morally superior can come from the fact that the other guy is imperialistic, attacked first, and either attacked us or went after people who are More Like Us. Trying to argue that cohesion requires religion is the same sort of BS used by "intelligent design" advocates, that society will fall apart if the government doesn't promote their beliefs as the national creed.
"The military attracts guys who are mostly White, seeking an alternative to the cubicle culture, with above average IQ, and the ability to seek out and wreak violence upon the enemy. Basically your boy scout who likes guns and blowing stuff up."
Whiskey,
Im aware that there are some college grads, community college grads, and some kids with 2 years of college in the military. Most of them however, are kids who signed up out of high school, or are just a few years out of high school. I dont think any kid who signed up pre-9/11 would have envisaged in his wildest that we'd be in Afgahnistan for a decade, Iraq for 7 years, and we are (probably) about to be in Iran. I imagine he wouldn't have signed up.
.....but with what we have (intentionally?) done to our economy, taking the construction jobs away--giving them to extremely low-wage illegals, shipping the manufacturing to China, and bringing in H1B visa-workers from all over the planet to take the 2-year-education-sort of technical jobs, many of the kids in the military are there for financial reasons. I doubt very many of them at all have enjoyed their tours of duty in these desertified locales. Serving in Afghanistan or Iraq would be very different than being stationed at Okinawa, Germany, or Guam.
We have had over a 1000 suicides in Afghanistan. That ain't "lovin' it". Their stress must be very high at this point.
Frankly Whiskey, I wish Israel would nuke whatever it thinks Iran might have (calculated to kill as many of their scientists as possible), and we'd declare and end to it and come home.
2)We need to get off oil. We can defund Islam and make them foment a real economy of their own (hell, we could starve them as a matter of fact), if we'd get off oil.
"So do we yield on the religious issue, trading a decidedly Christian ethic for greater national solidarity? Or do we relinquish the romance of American moral preeminence and welcome a proxy ethics based on limitless social justice? I'll go with the former, but only if we get rid of anything like this."
So what you're saying is you'll let the religious right-wing extremist keep up their big lies if they'll keep fighting foreigners to keep your homeland safe and secure for you. You find this preferable to any rational discussion since that might allow the left-wing the forum they need to spread their malicious socialism? If you’re going to use empty religious fervour to prop up nationalistic ideology, how can you criticize the left for having no ethical code?
You can’t fight a philosophy with lies. Religion may win the most devotion from the masses to begin with but rationalism will win out in the end. I wouldn’t tempt such a battle if it could be avoided. This is the kind of ideology that could tear a country apart. When the “secular” government tries to pull your religious army-dogs back, don’t be surprised when they turn around and bite.
@ Cul-de-Sac:
So what you're saying is you'll let the religious right-wing extremist keep up their big lies if they'll keep fighting foreigners to keep your homeland safe and secure for you.
You guys are focusing too much on the Army issue. I don't support the "invade the world" approach.
I was merely using that as a springboard to discussion of nationalism. I was using it as an example of widespread passion engendered by the presumption of moral superiority - a concept often supported by appeal to religion.
But that was but an example of the larger idea that nations need narratives - often propped up on "religious" terms. Take Israel. Even secular Jews tacitly accept the "Jews coming together" destiny-type idea of why Israel should exist. They might not wear funny hats, but they'll passionately defend the idea that Israel (in that exact location even) is the promised land for Jews.
You need a "religious" narrative to underpin national sentiment. That's my point.
And "right-wing religious extremists"? What, they're not going to let gays marry? Gosh no. Are you going to allude to the Christian Taliban next?
You can’t fight a philosophy with lies. Religion may win the most devotion from the masses to begin with but rationalism will win out in the end.
You think the masses are going to stop believing in religion, especially in America?! Given The Faith Instinct, I don't think so. but let's say that happens. Traditional religion will just be replaced by some proxy supernatural religion, like modern leftism or Gaiaism - all untenable ideologies with a concept of divine providence (in mushy terms) justifying political policy. People will always believe all kinds of stupid shit. You can't really get around that.
I am all about defunding Islam. Have been for years. The biggest problem I can see is that it's the left which wants to get off oil, and the right (including lots of people who call themselves counter-jihadists) who insist on the right to drive gas-guzzlers regardless of where the money goes from the pump.
You can't make this stuff up.
One, what CDSH tells you is true.
"Military guys like to blow people up, but even for the most macho, this type of activity can weigh on one's consciousness if they don't think they're on the right side."
So then, you advocate for using the military to do immoral things. But creating fake myths to deceive soldiers into disbelieving their own consciences.
In other words, you ask soldiers to die for you --believing a lie that you consider yourself too smart for.
"You guys are focusing too much on the Army issue."
Yes, because it is stunningly evil.
So then, you advocate for using the military to do immoral things.
Never said this. You're misconsturing my argument as usual.
Let's go to a recent military controversy - the Israeli flotilla raid. To anyone who understand that a country has a right to defend itself, this was a moral action. But to the international left, the flotilla raiders were merciless murderers.
So even though they did the right thing, if they listened to the left, they'd be feeling very guilty. They'd think that they had just killed some poor innocent freedom fighters.
But if imbued with the idea of Israeli sovereignty, of the religious idea that Jews belong in Israel, etc..., these soldiers would be convinced they had acted according to the moral good. And on the top of this, they have God on their side.
America needs to believe they hold the moral high ground and divinely inspiried narratives (i.e. Christianity or Manifest destiny) are the most common and potent means of doing so.
I simply couched the initial argument in military terms. The more general point is basically disavowing the specious, Howard Zinn type framing of America as a rapacious force of evil. Religion, or proxy religious ideas, do well do achieve this goal.
In other words, you ask soldiers to die for you --believing a lie that you consider yourself too smart for.
While I'd take Sarah Palin over most of the Harvard Law faculty, a portion of the masses do need noble lies like religion. That's not me being an elitist (sorry I didn't realize you were such a man of the people with your derisive comments concerning the "heartland"), that's simply understanding how people are.
"You can’t fight a philosophy with lies. Religion may win the most devotion from the masses to begin with but rationalism will win out in the end."
Sounds swell, but the left currently isn't any more rational than the religionists. Check out OneSTDV's post on Liberal Creationism.
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/liberals-who-deny-evolution.html
The rational just don't have the numbers. The simple can't really reason, and liberals won't.
@ silly girl:
Yup, you'll like Friday's post.
"You're misconsturing my argument as usual."
I'm following it to its logical conclusions, as you are consistently unwilling to do.
You explicitly. stated that we should teach lies to the soldiers that risk their lives for us, so as to subvert their own consciences.
And the implication is that these military commands cannot be rationalized any other way. Only lies will work, because the truth is too ugly.
"Let's go to a recent military controversy - "
Fine. Name a military action that you believe was moral, but which you cannot justify by telling the truth. Explain how an action can be moral but the truth not enough to justify it.
"America needs to believe they hold the moral high ground"
And why is taking moral action not enough to achieve this? Why do Americans need to be lied to?
"The more general point is basically disavowing the specious, Howard Zinn type framing of America as a rapacious force of evil."
Fight lies with lies, then. Because when it's you who lies, it's fine. You believe the right things, so you aren't obliged to follow any moral code.
"a portion of the masses do need noble lies like religion."
Why? Because they're stupid? Because they're too difficult to control?
And what entitles you to the truth? Do you want to be lied to, if that makes the country easier to run?
"That's not me being an elitist "
It's you being an elitist and worse.
Frankly Whiskey, I wish Israel would nuke whatever it thinks Iran might have (calculated to kill as many of their scientists as possible), and we'd declare and end to it and come home.
Why is this comment considered ok when a call to massacre Jews wouldn't be?
I don't see how allowing evangelical protestants to exercise religious hegemony over the US Armed Forces, and America in general, could have any negative fallout. There's just no way that science education could be debased to the point of elimination by purging anything not compatible with a 6000-year-old Earth, one Great Flood, etc. The idea that scientific and technological progress might suffer from a lack of prepared HS graduates is simply not realistic, and it's totally impossible for the USA to fall into something like the Lysenkoist trap in which scientific truth is forcibly subordinated to ideological correctness. Purge relativity because it sounds like moral relativism? Who could even think such a thing?
It's even more ridiculous to think that a religious takeover might lead to, not unity, but civil war. Everyone knows that religion never leads to violent divisions, reprisals, death marches, and other things which weaken or destroy nations.
Nope, nothing to see here. Good idea, One. Let's do it.
Yours Truly,
Sarcastro
"Everyone knows that religion never leads to violent divisions, reprisals, death marches, and other things which weaken or destroy nations."
Sarcasm aside. Marxist atheism waxed plenty of innocent folks in the 20th century. Religious wars were skirmishes in comparison to totalitarian extermination campaigns.
Personally I am against any sort of civic religion. However, any rational person can see that atheism is not an inoculation against ideologically inspired violence.
"Why is this comment considered ok when a call to massacre Jews wouldn't be?"
Iran's democratically elected leader, Mahmoud AhmadiniNUT-JOB has called for "wiping Israel off the map" several times. He is attempting to enrich enough nuclear material to put on a missile (so he can lob it at Israel). He has made wild statements in the past about Israel being driven into the sea and such. This guy isn't kidding. He really is a fanatic, hell-bent on Israel's destruction. Im hoping that he is unelected in Iran's next election. Israel simply can't sit by and allow a already missile-capable Iran the ability to put nuclear warheads on those missiles with Ahmadinijad in control of Iran.
Ahmadinejad may be Iran's president, but the real power lies in Khameini and a few other mullahs. It's more important to watch what they say and do than what he says and does.
I’m not focusing on the army issue, but it was part of this discussion and it is obviously an important part of any national ethos. I was focusing on the lies as foundation of a nation.
@silly girl
Sounds swell, but the left currently isn't any more rational than the religionists. Check out OneSTDV's post on Liberal Creationism.
So you're trying to out-radicalize them? I wasn't proposing any of "The Left's" ideas. Rationality may be the liberal front, but it's not always their guide. There are plenty of right-wing atheists, moderate atheists etc. I'm so sick hearing left-right bickering while moderates are drowned out and driven to apathy.
So what about moral superiority? What moral superiority? That’s what led Bush into Iraq. Maybe that is a good thing because Saddam would still be there with all of the American WMD that Bush snuck back home. But, barring any revelations of a secret imminent threat, it was a horrible mistake.
I don’t want to paint America is “Evil”, it just needs to step off it’s pulpit because the preaching is weak and tired.
People will always believe all kinds of stupid shit. You can't really get around that.
But exploiting those beliefs to advance one's agenda is abuse of power.
Post a Comment