Sent in by JoeB, from the Washington PostThe Defense Department's inspector general has found that four generals and three other military officers improperly participated in a fundraising video for an evangelical Christian group, inappropriately offering support for the religious organization while appearing to operate within the scope of their official government duties, according to a 47-page investigative report.
Investigators concluded that the officers should not have participated in the filming in 2005 of a 10-minute video for Christian Embassy, a nonprofit religious group, which ultimately used the video as a fundraising tool. While Christian Embassy has hosted prayer meetings at the Pentagon for years, the inspector general concluded that the officers' endorsement of its activities -- while in uniform, showing their rank and in the halls of the Pentagon -- violated ethical rules.
"The overall circumstances of the interviews emphasized the speakers' military status and affiliation and implied they were acting within the scope of their official positions as DoD spokespersons," the report concluded.
The military's connection to religious expression has come under scrutiny in recent years, highlighted by complaints of religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy in 2004 and 2005, when officers were promoting evangelical Christian views. In 2003, Army Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin was faulted for criticizing Muslims while appearing in uniform before church groups, actions that the inspector general did not consider violations of ethics rules. Last year, a Navy chaplain was court-martialed for appearing in uniform at a political protest in front of the White House, though he maintained that all he did was lead a prayer.
The inspector general last week recommended that Air Force and Army leaders take unspecified "corrective action" against the seven military officers who took part in the Christian Embassy video.
Air Force Maj. Gens. Peter U. Sutton and Jack J. Catton Jr., and Army Brig. Gens. Vincent K. Brooks and Robert L. Caslen Jr. were singled out for failing to seek appropriate approval to participate in the video and for violating ethical rules by appearing in uniform while praising the religious group. Retired Army Col. Ralph G. Benson, a former Pentagon chaplain, was also criticized for allowing Christian Embassy unescorted access to the building to film the video and for misrepresenting the purpose of the effort as a promotion of the Pentagon chaplain's office.
The other two officers were not named.
Sutton, now retired, who was chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation in Turkey, and Caslen, commandant of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, both wrote in letters to investigators that they "accepted full responsibility for their actions and committed to be more alert to ethical issues in the future," according to the report. Brooks, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division and former top spokesman for the Army, and Catton, director of requirements for the Air Combat Command, both wrote that they believed they met ethical standards and had thought they were taking part in an approved video.
The report, published last week, cleared Army Secretary Pete Geren and another civilian of wrongdoing for participating in the same Christian Embassy video, finding that they appeared in a way that obscured their government jobs and had no link to the Pentagon itself. Geren spoke of how important Christian Embassy had been to his life, calling it "a rock" that helped him in his "walk with Christ."
Christian Embassy was founded nearly 30 years ago by the late Bill Bright, who also founded Campus Crusade for Christ. It evangelizes among military leaders, politicians and diplomats in Washington. Christian Embassy officials did not return calls yesterday.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog group led by retired Air Force lawyer Michael L. Weinstein, requested an investigation of the video last year. In a statement yesterday, Weinstein said he now wants Congress to hold oversight hearings.
The report "confirms the intentional dismantling of the Constitutionally mandated wall separating church and state by some of the highest ranking officials in the Bush Administration and the U.S. military," Weinstein wrote.
LINK
The officers in question all claim to have participated in good faith, remarking that Christian Embassy has long appeared to be supported or endorsed by DoD. Two of them accepted full accountability.
At the heart of this debacle is the Pentagon Chaplain who, knowing the purpose for Christian Embassy's video, deliberately misrepresented their purposes to the approving authority and failed to limit their activities to the date requested. Instead of one day of filming, they were given unescorted access for 10 months.
Watch the Christian Embassy video here. One YouTuber also edited it into two parts with commentary: Part 1 and Part 2.
Thanks, J.C.
It's a complete "mockery" to swear an "oath", vowing to protect and defend the constitution of the U.S., while ending the "federal" oath, with; "so help me God". I suppose, if someone just can't muster the responsibility of defending it, they can always say, "well, God obviously didn't help enough".
Hmmm... can't wait until there is a draft, I want to see how many citizens refuse to serve because of the obvious conflict of interest. Serving, in such a military today, makes one ponder whether they are serving within a federal "hypocrisy" or "democracy".
More than a few people need to wake up during civics classes!
I did want to bring up that the oath no longer includes "swear" or "so help me god". As a former military member, they did make it clear that each individual was allowed to make the choice to replace "swear" with "Affirm" and omit "so help me god" completely at the end of the oath.
While I was in, the only religious endorsement that I could see was the fact that every military cerimony includes a prayer. However what base you are at and what religions are represented at that base made a difference. The chaplain leading the prayer might be a Christian, Rabbi, or on some bases even Wiccan.
There was no way to "opt" out as an athiest, and I would like to see this prayer go away.
In all other circumstances though, there WAS opprotunity to not participate. In fact, while on deployment, a chaplain decided to lead a prayer while we were in formation, without the disclaimer that those who don't want to participate, may break ranks.
That Chaplain never led us in prayer again, and was harshly dealth with...
Could there be a connexion betwixt the USAF Academy and most the Dominionist ministries being in Colorado?
Thanks for the reply. Yes, there is the option for affirm, I get to see the card on a regular basis.
Here's the oath;
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
The crux of the matter, is that the word God, is established on federal currency, national pledge of allegiance, and even the military enlistement oath. And, your assertion is correct, a member does not "have" to end their oath with "so help me God".
However, there is the alternative, which would remove the binding between church and state with that word.
The federal Government, can easily just take the word "God" completely out of the oath, and allow service members who feel so compelled to call upon the God(s) for help, in their personal responsibility, if they so desire, at the end of the oath, falling down upon their knees in dramatic effect... instead, of posting the word "God", on the oath, and suggesting that service members have the option to "ignore" a portion/last part, as if it were trivial.
To ignore part of the oath, trivializes, marginalizes and undermines the credibility of the document itself. It's almost akin, to creating an ad-lib, with a blank, that allows people to pick and choose which noun best fits the blank... me or God.
The oath, reads like a restaurant menu, that has not been updated to reflect the true options; there is "me", and then "me". Oh, and there's "me" again. That "member" seems to be a common theme for all that would enlist in the military, there is no need to extend the government's oversight beyond the member, as if the words "so help me God", are going to somehow embolden one's promise to serve with integrity.
As well, I agree that the prayer vigils at the end of ceremonies, tend to be based on "complaint", and congressional investigation. For instance, until someone goes to the IG, to make a complaint, the prayers continue "as if" there is nothing wrong with it. The standard, appears to be, there is no standard, and that each base like you said, is treated differently based on the needs of its personnel.
In the Air Force, one hears the common phrase; I can't wait to find the real Air Force. Humorous, because there is so much "flexibility", that no two bases are alike, nor any two squadrons for that matter, at least in matters of operational flavor.
When a standard is lacking, or regulations can be interpreted a million different ways, then they can mean anything; and something that can mean anything; is something, that is meaningless.
The Air Force core values; Integrity, SaS, Excellence... if it were the expectation that each individual held to personal integrity... why would the word "God" even be a requirement. Suggesting one needs a God to do the right thing when no one else is watching, undermines the very nature of value expectation and levels of responsibility. The buck stops at the individual, and the individual needs to be thoroughly aware that "they" are ultimately responsible for keeping their promise with integrity.
The use of the word "God" anywhere in federal government, only complicates the separation between church and state. I don't particularly like the mixed signals that obviously open gaps up, to be exploited, as in the topic of this thread.
Religion is a personal issue, not a military issue, therefore, all religious activity needs to find its way off federal property in my opinion, and the word "God" on the oath of enlistment can leave as well. Again, thanks for the response, have a great one.