Conscientious Objector…or looking for a way out?

Leave a comment

I read this article on this morning.  In a nutshell, a Muslim who enlisted in the US Army one year ago is now requesting Conscientious Objector (CO) status in order to avoid deployment to Afghanistan.

My first thought upon reading the headline was to wonder exactly when this young man joined the Army.  Had he joined several years ago, before our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq began, I could somewhat understand him objecting to personal involvement in either of these two theaters (although my next question would have been, “Why now?  Why not 9 years ago when this whole party got started?”).  However, seeing as he just joined the Army a year ago, I have a hard time understanding his seeming ignorance of the fact that joining the Army would very probably require him to deploy in support of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan (or both).  Wouldn’t that have been a conscience issue better examined and resolved prior to his enlistment?

Further Internet exploration led me to PFC Abdo’s blog.  Here, in the “About Me” section, PFC Abdo cites his “struggle against religious discrimination and for freedom of conscience in the U.S. Army.”  How does PFC Abdo see himself as a target of religious discrimination?  A second related article contained statements from Army personnel at PFC Abdo’s base (Fort Campbell, KY) detailing the numerous options Muslim soldiers have to celebrate their religious observances – duty and deployment permitting, of course.  Muslim soldiers at Fort Campbell have even been notified of special considerations the base is willing to make to enable them to observe Ramadan appropriately.  Nowhere did PFC Abdo provide additional details regarding specific incidences of religious discrimination, and if Fort Campbell is in fact permitting such special considerations to be made, it’s hard to see any religious discrimination being directed towards this soldier.

As I mentioned above, all religious observances are subject to duty requirements and deployment schedules.  Combat operations do not differentiate between Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or any other faith traditions.  I can recall numerous Sundays on deployment when I was unable to attend church services because I was briefing for a flight.  One of my roommates on my first deployment, a Jew, kept kosher.  She quite reasonably did not expect the menus to be overhauled to accommodate her tradition, but rather accepted the limitations that came with deploying on a ship tasked with feeding five thousand other people and simply selected foods that honored Jewish kosher laws.  Neither of these examples details religious discrimination, but rather the realities of military life.

The freedom of conscience argument, however, is a whole separate issue.  Military members have freedom of conscience, yes.  We don’t all have to adhere to the same religion; we don’t all have to register with the same political party; we don’t all have to have the same views on health care reform, or abortion, or the economy, or even on the wars in which we’re currently engaged.  But there comes a point where being true to your conscience necessarily precludes you from military service.  PFC Abdo states that, “Islam is a peaceful religion, it’s not a religion of warfare…and it’s not a religion of terror.”  PFC Abdo should have realized, prior to enlisting in the Army, that entering a branch of the armed forces might eventually require him to engage in acts of warfare, particularly considering that every branch of the armed forces is currently overtasked in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (among others).  If you don’t support those – if you concientiously object – that is your right.  Fortunately, involvement in those conflicts is also 100% avoidable for those who do object.  However, once you enlist – once you take an oath – some measure of freedom of conscience necessarily goes away.

Further reading of the original FoxNews article mentions that PFC Abdo has been the target of “harassment, discrimination, and intimidation due to his religious beliefs.”  This leads me to believe that perhaps PFC Abdo is not so much a conscientious objector as a disillusioned soldier looking for a quick way out of the Army.  Rather than pulling the conscientious objector flag over his head, why not be a positive ambassador for Islam to his fellow soldiers?  Why not demonstrate that not all Muslims are terrorists, or anti-American, or any of the other anti-Muslim stereotypes that are widespread in our country?


“Restoring Honor” with Glenn Beck


This past Saturday, Glenn Beck traveled to Washington, D.C., where he stood on the steps of the Capitol and issued a call for national “revival.”  Unlike revivals of the past, however, this was not a purely Christian revival – the kind where believers are called to the mission field, or new believers get baptized, or churches grow and multiple to reach more of our neighbors for Christ.

Instead, this “revival” sounds like a syncretistic blend of church and conservative politics.  And as much as I think that the conservative “agenda,” generally speaking, derives its values from Christian ethics more so than does the liberal agenda, I think that Glenn Beck’s desired “revival” would actually reflect a hijacking of the true Gospel.  Christ did not come to earth to see certain laws passed and others struck down.  He did not come to earth to advocate for a certain political party, or mindset, or agenda.  He did not predestine Republicans for glory and Democrats for damnation.  To claim otherwise – to tie evangelicalism or Catholicism (or Mormonism) to politics in hopes of advancing your agenda – demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of exactly what Christ came to do and exactly what Christians (should) seek to accomplish in the world around us.

Dr. Russell Moore goes into more detail here.

Don’t get pulled over in Utah unless…

Leave a comment

My husband emailed this link to me at work today.  I read it several times, becoming increasingly frustrated about many of the issues discussed herein.

The complaint that using crosses (or any religious symbols, for that matter) on a roadside to memorialize a death is actually some attempt at subtle, state-sponsored Christian evangelism is smoke and mirrors by atheists.

When a rational person who has lived in America for any length of time sees a cross alongside a road, their first assumption is that someone died at or near that site in some kind of automotive accident.  I don’t believe anyone would see a cross alongside the road and instantly think, “Clearly the government is telling me to repent and be saved!”  I have a hard time believing the atheists themselves think this is the case.

Even more absurd is the 10th Circuit Court’s ruling that seeing these crosses on state roads “may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP — both in their hiring practices and, more generally, in the treatment that people may expect to receive on Utah’s highways.”

My first thought when I read this was, “this judge can’t possibly be serious.”  Unfortunately, based on the fact that he wrote this into a formal court ruling, it appears that he is.  I wonder how he imagines this would play out?

“Do you know why I pulled you over?”
“I’m not really sure Officer…was I speeding?”
“In fact you were.  55 in a 25.”
“I’m so sorry – I was just on my way to church!”
“In that case, carry on – Christians don’t have to obey the laws in Utah, you know!  Just look at those crosses on the side of the highway – that should make it obvious!”

Try again, Judge.
The increasing hostility shown to public expressions of religion in this country – particularly to Christianity – is, I think, based on an incorrect understanding of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.  If we could rouse the Framers from their graves and ask if this is what they expected would become of religion in America when they wrote the Bill of Rights, I bet the answer would be a resounding no.  Perhaps they would remind us that freedom of religion is NOT the same as freedom from religion.

When the government starts limiting access to services or granting privileges to one group over another based solely on religious preference, that is unconstitutional.  Memorializing fallen officers with crosses does none of those things.  Why then the protest?

First Amendment under fire in CA

Leave a comment

The mother of a seventh-grader in California is suing her daughter’s school for their response to her wearing a pro-life t-shirt to school. The shirt had the word “ABORTION” in large block letters at the top. Below were two pictures of a developing fetus in utero, then a black square, with the caption, “Growing…growing…gone.”

Upon seeing the t-shirt, a school staffer forced the girl to throw away her partially-consumed breakfast and report to the principal’s office, where she was forced to remove the t-shirt and surrender it to school officials for the remainder of the day. The school claims their actions were justified because the girl’s t-shirt violated the district dress code, which forbids clothing with “suggestion of tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter.”


How do pictures of a baby in utero fall into those categories?

Even the local Planned Parenthood chapter did not protest the t-shirt; their Vice President for Public Affairs had the good sense to admit that, “Even offensive speech is protected as long as it doesn’t impinge upon the rights of others.” (I’m still not sure how pictures of a baby are offensive, but at least they got the free speech part right).

Further details can be found here.

Sadly, I’m pretty sure that had this been a pro-choice, pro-gay, or pro-any other part of the left agenda t-shirt, it would have been allowed and even celebrated as an example of “tolerance,” “open-mindedness,” or another leftist buzzword. Here’s an idea, folks – unless you can be tolerant of everyone’s point of view, you’re not tolerant at all. You might even be violating their First Amendment rights.


Leave a comment

Religious freedom in Santa Rosa County, FL

Leave a comment

Kudos to the students and administrators of Pace High School in Pace, FL! At the Class of 2009’s graduation ceremonies on 4 June, the entire graduating class stood together and recited the Lord’s Prayer; some even taped crosses to the tops of their graduation caps. This was in defiance of a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the ACLU, claiming that school teachers and administrators had “endorsed religion” by allowing students to pray in school.

An ACLU attorney was quoted saying, “Our feeling is that it’s regrettable that the students took over the ceremony to impose their religious views on the audience who may not have shared the same religious views. School officials have a responsibility to protect the silently held religious views of others.” In response, Principal Frank Lay refused to forbid the graduation prayer, even at the risk of his job with the school.

Since when is praying aloud imposing your religious views on someone else? Is the listener harmed simply by virtue of having heard a prayer? Were the non-participating audience members penalized for not praying or believing as the students did?

The ACLU seems to have forgotten that there are two equally important portions of the First Amendment’s establishment clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” By suing the school (on whose behalf, by the way?) it appears that in their attempt to enforce the First Amendment, the ACLU is actually attempting to deny students’ and faculty members’ right to freely exercise their religious belief.

I hope it doesn’t offend anybody to know that I will be praying for Principal Lay and the staff of Pace High School, and thanking God for their moral courage in this situation.

Racism by any other name

Leave a comment

Really, Judge Sotomayor? “A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Let’s turn the tables for a moment, shall we? If a white person implied that he “would reach a better conclusion” on a judiciary matter than someone of another race, based solely on their differing races, would we not call that racism? Quite certainly so. But when a minority makes that assertion, it is not racism? Then what is it? The dictionary defines racism as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.”

So again I say, really, Judge Sotomayor? Sounds like racism to me.

Older Entries Newer Entries