Scary Christian Soldiers

by Edward _

Via Kos

Preface: There's enough confusion about where this was originally published to make me question whether a bit of grape vine reporting has altered the full story. However, there's more than enough highly disturbing about it (including photos) to warrant discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Liminal, on his anti-war blog Shlonkom Bakazay? (whose tag line is "an iraqi-american ashamed, in denial"), offers some disturbing images and commentary by a writer named "locomono" whose original post is apparently no longer available (or is for members only).

In a nutshell, locomono attended a Father-Son function at their local Baptist Church in Lexington, Kentucky, and the militaristic nature of the presentation disturbed him enough he began taking photos after a film was shown:

First off, this is absolutely true and only happened about an hour ago. I am a Christian, a republican and support the war in Iraq, but this pisses me off in ways I cannot explain even to myself. [...]

When the lights come up my earlier discomfort is redoubled. I realize something is very ********ed up, and start taking pictures. What I see reminds me of footage from the third right [Reich?] the way patriotic imagery is thrown around bugger all. What you’re looking at is government mesh thrown over the steps to the balcony, and a huge flag covering up all but the tip of a huge cross in the first picture, and the huge amount of people sitting below various armed forces banners in the second. There was a nice POW one behind me. I apologize for the poor quality but it’s a new camera, and I’m still learning how to use it, especially in low & mixed light conditions. [...]

After that, they had guys wearing the traditional US uniforms over time walk out in order while scenes from a Jesus movie I cant recall played. I was never aware of voodoo style witch doctors, or Indiana Jones being members of our military (far left and second from right respectively in the first pic). I think it’s kinda funny that unless I’m wrong that fellow on the far left of the second pic is wearing a confederate uniform. I know it’s ridiculously bad taste but yes, that really is Jesus on the cross in the first picture…in behind our troops. When the final modern troop stepped out too the front and center he thrust his rifle one handed into the air to shouts of approval, the Jesus footage was still playing, and at that particular point even my dad was uncomfortable.

Read the whole thing and see the photos. Locomono nails what's wrong with this:

Even as I had already taken these photographs of something that I clearly know is wrong, hell we ended with “I‘m proud to be an American”, after a sermon and a combined rendition of all the services anthems. I was conflicted. I knew, and know that almost all of the people I’m depending on to bring this to light disagree with me on virtually every issue. I wasn’t going to release this unless they were recruiting. They were.

Jesus himself only got mad once. It was because merchants were using the church to sell their wares, he flipped their tables, seized a whip, and attacked them. This day the answer to “what would Jesus do?” is grab one of the m-16s laying around and start kneecapping.

OK, so perhaps Jesus wouldn't kneecap anyone, but is there any doubt he'd find this display about as unChristian as any imaginable?

Liminal uses this to suggest the military is recruiting for a war against Iran and asks:

What is the difference between Muslims trying to defend their homeland by recruiting from mosques and Christians trying to defend their homeland by recruiting from churches?

You could argue it depends on whether they're on offense or defense, but pre-emptive invasions have blurred that distinction. You could argue it depends on whether they're targeting civilians or military targets, but "shock and awe" operations don't discriminate.

There are differences in my opinion. The US military is not a terrorist organization for one thing (and one must assume the Muslims referenced here are), although our military's recent widespread slackening in its vigilance against the use of torture does, shamefully, leaves that difference less stark than it was 5 years ago.

I'd like to add that Christians are not trying to forcibly dominate the world, but look at the text on the program for the event locomono attended:

Our mission statement: "To worship God, globally lead people to faith in Christ, and grow together to be like Him."

On one hand that's just scary juxtaposed as it is (see other side on Liminal's site) with clip art of tanks and helicopters. On the other hand its blasphemous, as Christ would not appreciate being associated with such warmongering.

Comments

[Jay C]

Edward, do you really want to go here?
Like it or not, this sort of stuff, however "scary" it seems to you (and, me too, FWIW) is precisely the sort of "patriotic"/militaristic pitch that resonates to the max with a large percentage of "Heartland" America: the mixture of nationalism, kick-ass militarism and religion that is a hallmark of most right-wing/authoritarian philosphies and regimes the world over.
Whatever you might think of it (and believe me, my views on this are probably quite close to yours) - critiquing it runs a big risk of looking, well, anti-American. Regardless of the pure simple-mindedness of reflexively associating a nation's military service with Holy Good and Righteousness, it is a reflex that all too many people have and will react to. IOW, what's your point?

[Dianne]

I'll probably get into all sorts of trouble for this remark, but I'd argue that it would be anti-American to not argue against nationalism, militarism, and even patriotism if one sees them as wrong or being used in ways that are wrong or harmful to the US or world. Which is more central to the US: the flag or the Constitution, that is, the symbol of the country or the legal document that makes the country a place worth fighting for?

[sidereal]

I think the point is to shine light on the shadows where dark things thrive.

A typical Democratic/liberal, but very mistaken, response would be to agitate against the legality or propriety of such absurd demonstrations in American churches. But that's just a symptom, and fighting the symptom will engender a lot of ill will for no gain. The problem is not that it's happening. The problem is that enough people in the congregation want it to happen that it happens. It's the responsibility of the people in that congregation to decide whether that's what they want their church to look like. . a fusion of religion and hypermilitaristic statism.

If enough of them do, then that's what their church should look like, and the best response is to make it well known to everyone else in the country. Maybe they'll be shamed. If enough of them don't, maybe they'll stand up and say it.

[wilfred]

Deutchland, my Deutchland.... I mean America, America God shed His Grace on Thee.... I mean....

[bob mcmanus]

Hey did everybody hear that Dave Neiwert won over at Wampum for best blog series of the year? I voted for Katherine of course, but it was a tough decision. Anyway, although it is about an f-word I won't use on many blogs, Orcinus is over to the left in hilzoy's links. Highly recommended, especially to those who might confuse the varying types of political extremism.

This was intended to be dead on-topic.

[Edward]

Regardless of the pure simple-mindedness of reflexively associating a nation's military service with Holy Good and Righteousness, it is a reflex that all too many people have and will react to. IOW, what's your point?

My point is Christ would not approve. Period.

The Christians I respect the most (my father included) tell me time and again that Jesus asked us to rise above our basest instincts. Look at how he lived his life. What about it would even begin to suggest he'd be less than furious about this display in his "Father's house"?

It's blasphemy. That's my point.

[Bird Dog]

For me, the recruitment literature and a Confederate-dressed soldier crossed the line of good taste and propriety, otherwise I don't see the big deal. This was an annual event by a church men's group with an "honoring the military" theme. When a soldier is invited to talk to a group of Christians in a church about his experiences and his faith while serving his country, you might expect to see a mix of military nd religious themes. I find it not a little warped that Kos would interpret an "honoring the military" banquet to be some sort of military recruitment meeting. But then again, I find "screw 'em" Kos to be a bit warped about certain things. If the men's group had a banquet next month with an "honoring the teachers" theme, why would that be any more or less inappropriate?

I see nothing wrong or ominous with a church mission "to worship God, globally lead people to faith in Christ, and grow together to be like Him." That is what Christians are called to do, sans sword of course.

[travis]

For those of us that live in the South, this kind of thing hardly merits notice. Non-issue. Next topic.

[postit]

"... sans sword of course."

Which is the point, no?

[Edward]

For those of us that live in the South, this kind of thing hardly merits notice.

Even covering the cross with a flag and playing images of a crucified Christ as back drop to a parade of costumes? Isn't it supposed to be God, Country, etc. in that order?

None of this is seen as tasteless or inappropriate?

[Jesurgislac]

Bird Dog: I see nothing wrong or ominous with a church mission "to worship God, globally lead people to faith in Christ, and grow together to be like Him."

No, I wouldn't expect that you would.

[Sebastian holsclaw]

Tasteless and inappropriate, yes. Scary, no.

I presume you have heard of "Piss Christ"? Tasteless and inappropriate, yes. Scary, no.

[Edward]

sans sword of course.

Indeed

[Edward]

I presume you have heard of "Piss Christ"?

Total non sequitor. One is critiquing religion, the other is supposedly celebrating it.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Total non sequitor. One is critiquing religion, the other is supposedly celebrating it.

The parallel is in the overreaction of those who don't like the expressed point of view. You called it scary. I'm willing to go with you on tasteless and inappropriate but not scary.

[st]

Last time I heard, nobody was standing next to Piss Christ trying to convince gallery attendees that pissing on the cross was their christian duty. That's why Piss Christ is not scary. Because it exists only to offend.*

Religion is sui generis, because the duty people feel to their god is so absolute and so deep, that to explicitly connect a worldly duty** to join the military with a religious (Christian) duty is the deepest manipulation I can imagine. Yes, religious authority, speaking from the altar, and directing the congregation to the recruiting table is scary. It is, in fact, the primary recruiting technique of those scary terrorists we are fighting. Unless you are willing to accept the mantle of holy war, the cross v. the crescent, this should at the very least rub you the wrong way. Draping the flag over the cross and handing out the papmphlets - it's like biting tinfoil. It's just not right.

Maybe this is just another one of those "real america" things that I just "don't get." Well, thank god. Oh, sorry, I mean Thank G-d.

* which it does. I personally think Piss Christ is a childish, stupid, empty piece of "encounter art" that demonstrates the artistic depth of a two-year-old s***ting on the rug in front of company.
**no matter how noble you may think it is, joining the military is a secular decision.

[Edward]

Yes, religious authority, speaking from the altar, and directing the congregation to the recruiting table is scary.

Excellent way to put it, st. So excellent in fact, I won't even defend Serranos (who is somewhat overrated IMO...and whose work is totally off topic).

[felixrayman]

I presume you have heard of "Piss Christ"? Tasteless and inappropriate, yes. Scary, no.

If Andres Serrano led a devoted congregation of millions and asked that they kill in the name of his beliefs, you would fear him.

[NeoDude]

And it's going to get worse...way worse.

[sidereal]

"I'm willing to go with you on tasteless and inappropriate but not scary."

The comingling of religion, statism, and militancy has a history of being scary. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[NeoDude]

Some fun readings on similar subjects:

The Christian Right and the Fascist Aesthetic

Smart Bombs, Serial Killing & the Rapture: The Vanishing Bodies of Imperial Apocalypticism

Prophecy, Politics & the Popular: The Left Behind Series & Fundamentalism's New World Order

[Bird Dog]

No, I wouldn't expect that you would.

Then perhaps you can tell me why the church's mission statement is wrong and ominous, Jes.

[Bird Dog]

Indeed

Edward, are you suggesting that Struecker is a religious crusader bent on using his military arsenal to convert non-Americans to Christianity? You're not making sense with this conflation you're making.

[Jay C]

I see nothing wrong or ominous with a church mission "to worship God, globally lead people to faith in Christ, and grow together to be like Him."

Nor do I, BD, except that in this case, the church leadership seems to have taken it for granted that God and Christ are serving members of the US Armed Forces, and that running what looks like a recruitment rally in a house of worship is just fine with the Big Guy Upstairs.
So I guess all that "Prince of Peace" stuff is just so much moonbattery, huh?

[notyou]

Haven't followed the links, but I have lived in some of the redder parts of California. In a number of those places, the local church was the only building large enough to accomodate a crowd.

Perhaps the commingling of church and state was incidental.

[Edward]

Bird Dog,

What I mean exactly is that Christ went way out of his way to preach a message of peace. It was in no way a message congruous with military themes or imagery. Anyone mixing his message with one of war is committing blasphemy. Full stop.

It's like what we're always discussing about the perversion of the true message of Islam. The true message of Christianity is PEACE.

The Pope totally gets this (although clearly he's clueless when it comes to other, ahem, issues of the day), but many Protestant leaders don't seem to.

Suggesting, even as casually as the placement of clip art on a church program, that Christ in any way would approve of war is unforgiveable. He wouldn't. He promoted peace. You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

[Jay C]

Notyou:

Apparently NOT: the pamphlet Edward linked to makes it clear that this "event" was planned by "ministry" of the church, that church functionaries were part of the ceremonies, and that it was held in the church as a sanctioned event (and that the attendees were all, or mostly, church members). Nothing "incidental" here.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I'm perfectly willing to agree with your interpretation of Christ's message. These people apparently do not. The fact that it is blasphemy according to our understanding isn't really relavent to the idea that they should or should not promote the armed services in their congregation.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Don't agree with that famous quote at all. Often the best way to prevent war is to prepare for it enough to scare off your potential attacker.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: Often the best way to prevent war is to prepare for it enough to scare off your potential attacker.

Gosh. Why didn't Saddam Hussein think of that?

[Katherine]

I think there are just wars, but I don't like this at all and I think it is gross distortion of Christ's teachings. But I have gone from a bad Christian to a non-Christian, and find so many of the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists* repellent, and they find so many of my beliefs repellent, that I don't really think I could say anything useful on this score. I'll just quote James Madison again on separation of church and state. Madison believed in it as firmly as Jefferson, but in his case it was as much to protect religion from being corrupted by the state, as to protect the state from undue religious influence. This is from the famous "Memorial and Remonstrance" against establishing a religion in the state of Virginia:

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?"

*I don't actually know the correct term. Evangelicals? The Christian right? Whatever you prefer, except I categorically refuse to say "fundagelical".

[Edward]

The fact that it is blasphemy according to our understanding isn't really relavent to the idea that they should or should not promote the armed services in their congregation.

I'm lost in the flotsam now. Are you suggesting I should accept that they don't see Christ's message as one of Peace? How am I supposed to relate to them, then? We're not worshipping the same God at all if the central messages are that different. They might as well be worshipping Mars.

except I categorically refuse to say "fundagelical".

Ahhh, you're breaking TS Elliot's heart. ;-)

[st]

"Standin' on the verge of gettin' it on, of gettin' it on..."

Oh, wait, that's "funkadelical," not "fundagelical." My mistake.

[Frank]

I'm lost in the flotsam now. Are you suggesting I should accept that they don't see Christ's message as one of Peace? How am I supposed to relate to them, then? We're not worshipping the same God at all if the central messages are that different. They might as well be worshipping Mars.

Great point here, I always thought of them as Pharisees, but thinking of them as pagans makes them easier to bear.

[Phil]

They might as well be worshipping Mars.

I suppose that's pretty much what they're doing.

Off-topic, but since it was brought up, I once read an elegant, if a bit tortured, defense of "Piss Christ" as interpretable as a comment the ongoing participation of unfaithful Christians (and, specifically, lapsed or apostate Catholics) in the debasement of the body of Christ. It was real po-mo, ignore-the-artist's-intent kind of stuff, but interesting nonetheless. Wish I could find it, I'd link it.