Pentagon: Soldiers may be prosecuted for “Promoting their Faith”

fr mulcahySay goodbye to Father Mulcahy.

It seems that the remaking of our military by Obama & Company has taken a decidedly darker turn, as they are now seeking to criminalize expressions of faith.

From WeaselZippers:

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense… Court-martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”. 


Being convicted in a court-martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court-martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military. 

What the what??

So let me get this straight: If a soldier discusses his faith with another soldier, even a friend, he can now be… court-martialed?

And some folks thought I was overreacting last year when I said that the militant Leftist push (e.g. the Obamacare contraception mandate, among others…) to be free FROM religion was a sign that our society was fighting a very real battle for our national soul. Well, …here we are.

Kirk and Picard facepalm

“Double facepalm”: when one just won’t suffice…

One of the cretins behind this anti-religious (and primarily anti-Christian) extremism is Mikey Weinstein. From a previous report courtesy of

“Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”

Those words were recently written by Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)in a column he wrote for the Huffington Post. Weinstein will be a consultant to the Pentagon to develop new policies on religious tolerance, including a policy for court-martialing military chaplains who share the Christian Gospel during spiritual counseling of American troops.

Weinstein decries what he calls the “virulent religious oppression” perpetrated by conservative Christians, whom he refers to as “monstrosities” and “pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers,” comparing them to “bigots” in the Deep South during the civil rights era.

praying military

He cites Dr. James Dobson—the famous Christian founder of Focus on the Family—as “illustrating the extremist, militant nature of these virulently homophobic organizations’ rhetorically-charged propaganda.” Regarding those who teach orthodox Christian beliefs from the Bible, Weinstein concludes, “Let’s call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.”

So, the dude from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (GREAT name, by the way…) says that conservative Christians are, among other epithets, monstrosities? Golly, doesn’t that sound wonderfully ‘inclusive’, ‘tolerant’, and ‘non-judgmental’ to you? No? Then you must undoubtedly belong to one of those “gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters”.

Weinstein is a really a piece of work. Is it any wonder that President Unifier drafted him to help write the military’s new policies on religious ‘tolerance’??


If ever there were a profession for which prayer could provide comfort and solace, it’s for soldiers. I’ll assume that Mr. Weinstein is unfamiliar with the proverb “There are no atheists in foxholes“? Yes, it’s just a saying…, and one that has endured, due to the truth behind it.

Being the son of a Naval officer, I am well aware of the rigors and sacrifice our fighting men/women endure, in times of both war and peace. Perhaps that’s why I fail to see how this practice will do anything to assist in their morale or well-being. If anything, it will simply add to a sense of paranoia throughout the military, lest someone accidentally let slip a mumbled prayer which could be overheard by their neighbor.

Yeah, this is gonna work out just dandy.


One more thing: I wasn’t exaggerating when I bid adieu to Fr. Mulcahy at the start of this, either:

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life.

It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

Our country was established by those who were seeking freedom OF religion, since their homeland had become hostile to them in this most essential area of their lives.

Yet it appears as if the Obama Administration, rather than learning from our history, is seeking to repeat it.



****UPDATE: 5/2/13 

(via Ed at – “Did the Pentagon bar Christians from talking about their faith while serving in the military? Not exactly, but a new push to aggressively stop proselytizing has chaplains nervous, according to the Deseret News:”

Ed doesn’t think this is particularly serious. Me? I’m not so sure. originally broke this story, and they were just vindicated as to their “Pigford” story. That one ran 100% counter to the Media narrative then, as well. 

This administration has done nothing to engender my trust in five years, so I’ll remain cautiously skeptical here until this plays out a bit further. 

I’m hopeful this is just a big misunderstanding, even if I doubt that to be the case. One thing is for certain: our men and women in uniform don’t need another headache to deal with right now. 

21 responses to “Pentagon: Soldiers may be prosecuted for “Promoting their Faith”

  1. livinrightinpgh

    So… becoming a member of our wonderful, dedicated, and brave armed forces, one NO LONGER has the right of “free speech”. I can stand on any street corner in the U.S. and proclaim the Gospel, but I can’t lend spiritual aid and comfort to my buddy in the foxhole next to me???

    The ridiculous is being replaced by the inane, which is being replaced by the abjectly STUPID.

    It’s clear who the real “monsters” are…….

    • I’d take your progression (which is largely correct) one step further: the last stop along the way is the dangerously Evil and/or Destructive.

      Stupidity can cause all sorts of problems, but it does so blindly, usually by accident. Evil has no such issues: it seeks out the areas to exploit and tear down, and tries to do just that.

      This new rule is destructive on its face, despite the cloak of impartiality it is wrapped in. It’s no different than a fox wearing sheepskin as he saunters into the hen-house.
      And you know what happens then…

  2. Every time I think it can’t get worse…God, bless and protect all our brave chaplains, and guide them as they make tough decisions about whether or not to abide by these new policies, should they be implemented.

    Sounding suspiciously like the decrees handed down to clergy in Nazi Germany…

    • I’d certainly agree with that sentiment, Sis:
      “You can have any opinion you wish, as long as it’s ours”, etc.,.. etc.,..

      …I almost expect to hear Obama demand we be given the Sudetenland

    • livinrightinpgh

      It should be clear to any HONEST observer that the agenda is simply to remove Faith and Religion from the public discourse.

      And yes, GBL, it has that Nazi “ring” to it, along with the actions of most every evil dictator in history.
      “Religion is the opium of the people”….

      • Lucky you didn’t say that in the Army, mister! We’d have court-martialed your rear-end, right quick!!

        What’s that? You said “opium“?
        Ohhhh, sorry about that!! …I thought you said “AMEN“.

        You can discuss DRUGS, suuuure, no problem.
        Just as long as you weren’t prayin’….

  3. I think that anyone in the military–theist or atheist–who badgers or harasses anyone else regarding religious beliefs should be disciplined. Also, any favoritism based on beliefs should be disciplined. But this proposed policy of court martial for mere talk of beliefs is completely ridiculous.

    By the way, your “no atheists in foxholes” link is not exactly supportive of the idea that there aren’t atheists in battle. If you read the reviews and remember that Pat Tillman was an atheist, you’ll find that many consider that idea disrespectful and patronizing.

    • Glad to have you comment, Apollo!

      Hopefully, most people would agree (as you and I seem to) that badgering or harassment shouldn’t be condoned, … and that this is NOT what is being discussed with this new rule.

      This is simply a way to marginalize and eliminate any/all discussions of faith; ANY faith. I have friends who are atheist/agnostic/Jewish/and every category of Christian you can think of. I’m actually the lone Catholic among my closest group of friends… and we discuss religion fairly often.
      This rule? Would eliminate those conversations, were we all enlisted.
      If this is an accident, it’s a stupid one. But I don’t believe something like this occurs by happenstance.

      Glad we agree on this…

      As for your second point: Yes, I’m aware that Tillman was an atheist. And I’d have to ask: So?
      I wasn’t holding that phrase out to apply to every soldier in the Army. It has endured because there is an underlying truth to it, not because it’s a blanket description, applicable to all.
      And if anyone ever felt that I (or anyone) was being disrespectful of them, or their service, simply by using such a phrase… honestly, that’d be their problem, not mine. Personally, I think we have to stop being so darn afraid of potentially uttering a phrase/word/whatever for fear of offending someone, or being insensitive.

      One of my favorite sayings from Mark Steyn is “Our country doesn’t need sensitivity training; we need INsensitivity training”.
      After spending my entire adult life in corporate America, …I’d agree wholeheartedly.

      Thanks again for stopping by, Apollo, and please don’t be a stranger!!
      Take care…

  4. I’ve been waiting for the Thomas Moore Law Center to take a military situation of Christian intolerance to the Supreme Court. This one might do it.
    There’s nothing to say about this. It’s unAmerican and traitorous.

    • After 4+ years of Obama, at this point: I’d believe just about anything.
      The man and his ilk sicken me, literally.
      I am aghast at the deliberate harm he is doing to my country, and how it seems to please him.

  5. Well they’ve been at it a while with chaplains, praying in Jesus name. Now I don’t know which part bothers me most: that they effectively ban speech and religious freedom, or that they will judge it on a “case by case” basis.

    • There must be an exemption written into the rules for Muslims. Surely, or that is what case by case means… (we reserve the right to be biased)

      • Thought of that too, BR, but there doesn’t appear to be any information forthcoming on that… yet. At least that I can locate.
        Let me know, please, if you see any.

        Yeah, it’ll be interesting to see how they square that particular circle.

        Or should I say: “crescent”…

        • livinrightinpgh

          You can be sure that NOTHING will be “in writing” about the rules as they apply to Muslims (or others). They’ll keep the law very broad and all-encompassing. The issue, as always, will lay in the ENFORCEMENT.

          Got a King James Bible in your hands? Suspect!
          Got a Koran in your hands? Nothing to see here….move along please.

    • 2 different bullets; same gun.
      The first is the general aim of the rule, and the second is just one aspect of how they’ll do it.

      Nebulous, vague rules have long been a preference for despots, and that’s where rules like this originate. That way, no one is ever sure if they are/aren’t breaking the rule, which keeps people in a state of uncertainty and fear.

      And fear makes people easier to control.

  6. Pingback: Meet & Greet With Congressman Jeff Duncan And US Senator Tim Scott | That Mr. G Guy's Blog

  7. Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy has already come out and questioned Pentagon leaders on this.

  8. Proselytization has always been been considered behavior detrimental to unit cohesion and morale. I can tell you that this was an issue in 1984 when a member of a submarine crew was reprimanded for creating a hostile condition for trying to convert a person of one faith to his own. That’s the answer the troops have been getting for decades. It’s up to them to open their ears and hear the message.

  9. “What the what” pretty much covers it. I wonder if liberals can spell “ungodly regime” without smiling. More despicably from Obama and his clones.

  10. Pingback: Military Chaplains are under attack, …again | Two Heads are Better Than One

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s