Belief in a divine enforcer precludes true morality.

I've written before of the Evangelical Christian fallacy that without God, atheists are allowed to do as they please, since they lack any moral guidelines.

Paul Jennings Hill

Atheists find this argument to be troubling at best, and downright scary at the worst.  If the only thing holding a Christian back from rape and murder is the fear of punishment, then such a person should be avoided!

It is also possible for a Christian (like Christian minister, Paul Jennings Hill) to use their religion to justify murder as an ethical action.

When a Christian is serious about basing their ethical guidelines on the Bible, it is reasonable to ask how they interpret the Bible in order to find those allowed by the Bible.  Mr. Hill, for example, had an interpretation that may be very different from other people.

But all of this is a different argument.

I contend that the belief in a divine lawgiver and enforcer actually precludes ethical behavior on the part of the believer.

Let's make it clear.  The Bible states that people who act in a manner that pleases God will be rewarded, and those who do not will be punished.  Matthew 25:31-46 is quite clear that our actions will be judged.

We must question whether it is even possible to act in a moral manner when a person's very thoughts are under constant scrutiny and their actions and thoughts are being weighed to see if they are a "sheep" or a "goat".   Whether or not a divine judge actually exists would seem to be beside the point.  The real belief that a divine judge actually exists will influence a person's actions.

If a Christian does good, by giving to the poor, comforting the sick, or just being a friend in a time of need, there must remain some awareness that God's judgement upon them is tracking their actions and adding those actions to their "book of life".  And this is more than action - the Bible makes it very clear that a Christian is even judged by his or her own thoughts.

Even if a Christian has the best of motives, even if they are truly altruistic, they must be aware at some level that their actions and thoughts are being monitored by the being that will judge them as being worthy of Heaven, or condemned for that other destination (which varies among the different Christian denominations.)

This knowledge reduces all lofty motives to the level of merely covering one's ass.

If you do good, some part of you knows you will be rewarded.  If you do bad, that same part knows that you will be punished.  Knowing this, how can a person claim that they are acting out of a moral purpose?  How can a person act ethically when that person is under constant surveillance and a promise of reward or punishment for their thoughts and deeds?

I submit that it is only possible to act ethically when one is sure that there is no reward or punishment for one's actions.  The true belief in the existence of God precludes true morality - only those people who act without the expectation of reward or punishment, now or in some afterlife, are capable of morality.

A true example of morality is an atheist who does good in secret, free from the judgement of humanity and divinity.

Preaching at the other choir - why we shouldn't try to "convert"

I was reading Dan Barker's words about "How to Talk to a Fundamentalist" in the Secular Student Alliance, and there were two points that he made that I've encountered before - something that I think on often.

The first point he made is about converting fundamentalists (to Atheism I presume). In Mr. Barker's words:

... actually, we can’t “convert” anyone. We all have to come to our own conclusions. If you were raised religious, like me, you know that your de-conversion came from inside, not from an atheist evangelist.

I really want to say, "Amen!" to that. I've come to the same conclusion when I mused on "Evangelical Atheism" before. To quote myself:

I’m convinced that outright Atheistic evangelism would be worse than useless when applied [aggressively], but it was Daniel Dennett who helped me put it into words. Dennett said in “Breaking the Spell” that the strength of an insular, cohesive group comes from the price that members must pay to join or to leave, and one of those prices is insularism – the “Us versus Them” and “Our religion is under attack!” beliefs shared by all Christians to some degree.

Any sort of evangelical Atheism specifically targeted toward a church would be seen as an attack. Christians who perceived it as such would only wrap themselves tighter in their illogical beliefs, vindicated in the price they were paying as a member of their chosen group.

Mr. Barker makes the same points that I've articulated before. Preaching rationality at a true believer won't change him or her. From Mr. Barker's words:

The bible predicts that we obedient messengers of Jesus would be misunderstood and persecuted. If you called me names, that proved the bible is true! It also raised my status in His eyes, which were more important than your eyes.

It was exciting to get doors slammed in my face. It was affirming to hear ignorant college students arguing with me, trying to use the flawed and misconstrued “facts” of mere science, which are always changing, to combat the transcendent truth of the bible, which never changes.
...

[Nonbelievers should] Just be yourself, say what you think, and don’t worry if [fundamentalists] change their minds. Be relaxed about it.
...

Most of us nontheists will complain only about the harmful behavior (not ideas) of believers, because people should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs. If a religiously motivated action is causing unnecessary harm, then moral people will challenge such behavior. Otherwise, belief is a private matter. Tell them a little of your opinions, then leave it at that.

When I was a Christian, my pastor called this sort of practice, "bringing people to God by living a Christian life". By being a good, confident and compassionate human, you would attract people to you - people who wanted to emulate you. We were encouraged to speak our mind when the time was right, and we were supposed to point out immoral or harmful actions. But in using this method, according to our pastor we were supposed to draw people in by answering their questions.

I think Mr. Barker is right in this. When I speak to Christians, I never do so with the intent to convert them. I don't mind saying things that will make them mull over my words, that will plant a seed of doubt. But I fully realize that if their belief is strong, my words will fall in the dust.

BUT

I do think it is right and proper for secular and rational people to speak up in opposition to the religious when appropriate. When, for example, religious people presume to speak for all of a community, including the secular members of that community. I think it is right to speak out when religious people propose actions that are immoral according to secular ethics. I think it is right for us to insist on equal and fair treatment under the law.

And I find it extremely amusing when, in doing these things, some religious people brand us as being aggressive or militant.


The second thing that Mr. Barker speaks about is the "black or white" mindset that is so often prevalent among religious fundamentalists. He quotes the verse from Revelation 3:14, where those who are not "hot or cold" are instead "lukewarm" and will be spit out. I've heard pastors use this verse to demand that their congregation be firm in the Lord, and I believe that this sort of statement is a "thought-terminating cliché" that actually stops critical thinking in a cult-like manner.

When people think in this simplistic manner they do not admit that life, the universe and everything is full of subtle shades of gray. There is an infinite amount of uncertainty, and uncertainty thrives even in the strictest of scientific observations.

When a rational person encounters such black and white thinking it is often better to not try to correct it, but instead point out that there is another way of viewing the world. Then walk away. As Mr. Barker points out, by refusing to fight, you've already won.


One last thing I would like to point out - Dan Barker and I share something else, something that I think a lot of ex-Christians share. We've felt the "Holy Spirit". From the article:

Most of you nonbelievers don’t know what it is like to “talk with God.” But I do know, which is why I can write about this. It’s quite a powerful experience, which I can reproduce today, with all the attendant feelings of being in the presence of a superior being—but as an atheist I now know that “talking with God” is purely psychological and points to nothing outside of the brain.

I've said much the same thing before in my "Mind hacking God" blog entry. Again, I'm quoting myself:

I find it very plausible that religious experience is created in the software of our minds as it runs on the wetware of our brains. I think this way because after I became Atheist, I was able to re-achieve transcending feelings of awe, of acceptance, of being comforted, and of reverence.

I don’t think that feelings of Nirvana come from outside of us because the feelings are not created by a common cause. Fasting in a sweat lodge, singing in mass, inspired group visualization (i.e. preaching) and meditation can all bring people to achieve these feelings.

Religion isn’t the answer because these feelings can be achieved in mutually exclusive religions.

I've managed to recreate these religious feelings as an Atheist by using music while meditating. Classical music will do it for me. Oddly enough, so will Van Halen's "Jump". It's the same feeling of love, peace and acceptance that I got when I was Christian, only now I know that I’m the one making it happen.

...

What this means to me is that it is possible to be a spiritual Atheist, not in some pseudoscientific paranormal sense, but in the sense that ‘mind’, the software that runs on the brain, has the capacity to achieve a different level of awareness of itself.

Please, excuse me for quoting my own words. I don't mean to do so out of hubris. But it is gratifying to me to read that so many of the same things I've been talking about in my blog, months ago, are being said by someone I very much respect.

A discussion with the Jedi Pastor

I've got a soft spot for Methodists. I first came from a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) background and we always found it easy to work together with Methodists. Our youth groups played together, our churches worked on common goals. When one of us walked into the other's church, we found it familiar and safe. (Not at all like that time the local Baptist church tried to baptize me all over again so I'd finally be a "real" Christian!)

So I want my readers to give a warm welcome to pastor Ken Hagler, of the Crossroads United Methodist Church of Marietta Georgia. Pastor Ken, who is also known as the Jedi Pastor, has been gracious and friendly in stopping by my blog to trade notes with me. We find we have things in common - the biggest of which is that we are both trying to grow new organizations.

Ken has several scattered comments throughout my blog, and I have commented in his blog. I thought it might be useful to bring much of that discussion to it's own post, where we can continue in a more orderly fashion.

Ken, in an earlier comment we say,

Me: No matter what path a new Christian takes, at least he's a Christian - right?

You: Yeah, I suppose you've got me on that one, to a point. Yet, John Wesley did an entire sermon and theme of the "Almost Christian." The idea being you're walking around with all the trappings but look at the heart. Do you really love God? Really? Then let me ask, do you love your neighbor and how about your enemy? Really? So, are you going out of your way to do anything about that?

I have to wonder about this sort of Christian position. It sort of borders on the all too common finger pointing where one Christian accuses another of not being a "true" Christian, which is often a logical fallacy.

I would think that the majority of main stream Christians would not want to claim Fred Phelps as their brother in Christ. But how many would claim James Dobson as a fellow Christian? Or Donald Wildmon, or Tony Perkins or David Barton? These people have wide support, not just among fundamentalist evangelicals, but among mainstream Christians too. But I and many others have noted where these people are acting in unethical and hypocritical ways.

But what if you're a Christian who doesn't agree with these people?

I don't claim that some atheists are not "True Atheists". I've written a two part post where I agree that atheists-turned-Christian were probably at one time atheist. (I do, however, question their understanding of secular philosophies and ethics.)

But when I point out the latest hateful act by a Christian leader, I very often get a response from a Christian where he or she says, "Oh, well I don't have that person's beliefs. I think he's wrong."

Worst of all is the response of, "Well, he's obviously not a Christian or else he wouldn't be acting that way."

Which leads to the obvious question. If you don't agree with one of these Chrstian leaders, have you let anyone know? I ask this because silence implies agreement.

When Tony Perkins uses his position to agree with California pastor Jim Garlow that same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to a loss of religious liberty (and eventually lead to the jailing of pastors), I see very few Christians refuting that silly argument. So I'm forced to believe that most Christians are in agreement, or at least not opposed, due to their silence.

Do you consider any of these religious leaders to be "almost Chrsitians"? And if so, do you speak against them, or try to teach others why these leaders may not be correct on an issue?

And yes, I know it is impossible to counter every little silly thing that a person might say, and I realize those on "my" side of the fence are just as prone to being idiotic. (Check out Patrick Greene) But I still think it is important to say something - even if you do feel like you're merely tilting at windmills.


Ken, I know that was a hard "poke", but it reveals some of my frustration with the mainstream religious "silent" majority in this country - their silence allows other religious people to speak for them. I think that our comments reveal that you and I are probably fairly close in how we view most things.


From another comment thread:

Me: But from an Atheist's point of view, this has to apply to ALL religions, not just Christianity. I'm an equal opportunity Atheist, I think there is no evidence for ANY religion.

You: I was responding more to this point, which I interpreted you to mean you were throwing all religions together: Theists VS Atheists. IF you and I were going to begin this discussion my first goal couldn't be to convince you of the truth of Christianity. You would have me present a case for God, in other words, to convince you of a theistic world view. At least this is how I understand your reasoning to this point.

Agreed. This is a major flaw in Pascal's Wager, which C.S. Lewis bases part of "Mere Christianity" upon. You can't start from Atheism and deliver me directly to the Trinity of Christianity - you have to travel a path.

This path has to talk about the religious form of the supernatural (and is it different or the same as what I would call the "ghosts and telepathy" form of the supernatural? Why or why not?) The path has to convince me that Christianity is superior to any other religion. It should answer those people who are also trying to convince me that "any path is good" - for example Universalism which is as happy with me being Islamic as they are with me being Christian.

This path should convince me that Jesus is something more than just a myth or historical figure turned mythic. And if you bring the Bible into your argument, you have an additional path to travel, namely convincing me that the Bible is anything more than a collection of stories. You'll be asked to clarify the contradictions in the Bible, and explain why God in the Bible seems so bipolar between the Old and New Testaments.

Worst of all, you'll have to do this not just for me, but for those people that I will go to ask advice of. I draw upon a large community of ex-Christians, some who have been former evangelical ministers, who know this material as well as you do. But being fair, I expect you to also draw on your own Christian community. However, that might work against you because I note that different Christians have interpreted the Bible to mean different things, some of which are contradictory!

And ultimately, while I think such a discussion will be interesting, I think that the psychology of belief (I've been reading about this lately) would seem to indicate that neither of us will be persuaded. The most either of us could hope for is to "plant a seed of doubt" in the other.

To continue this comment, you say:

I had not thought of expanding the sphere of scientific evidence. But if we did as you suggest, namely exploring options, doesn't that equate to one of the atheist arguments against denominations and sects? If we grant to you the opportunity to explore scientific answers, can we not receive the same opportunity to explore the spiritual without being plastered for it?

There is an Atheist argument against the different "flavors of Christianity" as I put it. If I'm asked to be Christian, and I say, "Sure! I'll become a Mormon!" I might get a horrified reaction. The same might be true if I select "Catholic" or even "Baptist" - it all depends on the faith of the person trying to convert me.

I don't think analogous to theories in science. First of all, I would argue that "scientific evidence" suggests a misnomer. I would narrowly define that there is a Scientific Method, and those who follow this method are scientists who are practicing science. I would define science to mean that effort to increase human understanding and knowledge of our physical world.

To me, the term "scientific evidence" is analogous to the term "alternative medicine". Evidence is either well supported, or it isn't evidence. The scientific method indicates methods of finding well-supported evidence, and I suppose in that way you could call it "scientific evidence" - but I believe most scientists would just call it "good evidence".


Another definition that I have a problems with is that of the word, "spiritual". When people say "spiritual" they often load the word with a lot of new-age-y concepts that deal with things beyond the material universe. Some people use it as a sort of "dodge" to allow themselves to identify themselves as "religious" without the necessity of conforming to all the rules of a religion.

I use the word spiritual to indicate the human condition, for example how humankind is able to share their pride in accomplishment, how we are able to share our sense of wonder.

I personally have not found evidence that there is anything beyond the material universe, so I don't use the word "spiritual" in that fashion.


Now that I've picked those nits... lets get down to the question. What I think you are asking is if I can pick on the different "flavors" of religion, then don't you get to pick on the different "flavors" of Atheism? Or of Science?

But atheism isn't science, although atheists may (and often do) point out that science findings don't support a supernatural world-view. Maybe an experiment tomorrow will prove the supernatural, but until then I'm satisfied to wait for evidence.

There is often an objection to science "not knowing anything (or everything)" because of the small sliver we see in the daily headlines. For example, according to the headlines scientists say coffee is good / bad for you and causes miscarriage / increased mental abilities / cancer / longer life. What are we to believe?

There are two difficulties with science. The first difficulty is that the game of science is played among humans. And humans can be petty and illogical. But when they follow the scientific method and follow the rules of the game the science becomes self-correcting. Sometimes it takes decades, and sometimes newer ideas have to wait until the petty supporters of an older and not quite as correct idea die off.

Even Einstein made this sort of mistake. His support of determinism in physics led to his famous quote, "God does not play dice with the universe." Quantum mechanics proved him wrong. As Stephen Hawking has said, "God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."

What this means is that even the "holiest" and most respected scientist can be proven wrong. Scientists love proving each other wrong because it leads to prestige. (And grant money!)

The second difficulty is that non-scientists don't understand that scientific theories are based on successive approximation. The first iteration of a theory, like Newtonian mechanics, is often "good enough" to get the job done. We went to the moon using Newtonian mechanics. Later iterations happen when the theory is refined, like using Einstein's general and special relativity to explain why the orbit of Mercury doesn't fit Newtonian mechanics. Einstein's theories didn't replace Newton's work, instead they clarified it further.

This is true in the field of evolution. Darwin's original theory is still being refined. Although I'm not a biologist, it is my understanding that some of his ideas were somewhat wrong and have since been corrected. And there is a whole host of things that Darwin never thought of, that have since been added.

But when two scientists argue passionately about their theories on evolution, a religious bystander is apt to crow that "Darwinism is in doubt!" I find it amusing that religious people did not point at the arguments between Einstein and Bohr as evidence that "Newtonian physics is in doubt!" This leads to the joke about the Evangelical position on "Intelligent Falling".

You are welcome to attack any scientific theory you wish. Scientists do it all the time. If you're successful, you could actually be awarded for doing so. But realize that science and atheism are not the same thing.

Now, if you wish to discuss secular philosophies and secular based ethics, I could recommend several - such as Secular Humanism or Positive Atheism or even The Brights.


One last bit from your comment:

Me: Science goes where religion fears to tread. And it's a darned good thing too!

You: I'm sorry but again, I can't go here with you. I have friends in the clergy ranks who are microbiologists and who have excelled in science and published excellent articles in defense of the scientific method (and even evolution!) Granted, it isn't my cup of tea (I have a broadcasting background), these clergy and I are United Methodist. We have a different code..."more like guidelines," to coin a phrase.

No, I think I still have the right of it here. From my point of view, you have described friends who are able to effectively operate under a dichotomy. In the lab, they are able to postulate and investigate a strictly material world, and do so successfully from the evidence of your words. But outside of the lab they are able to postulate a supernatural world that includes a divine creator.

They are not directed by religion to learn how all of (ahem) "creation" works. In fact, some flavors of Christianity explicitly reject certain avenues of study. For example, talking about the possible evolutionary and genetic components of homosexuality gets some Christians very upset.

But you're Methodist, and you have a "different code". In other words, you belong to a flavor of Christianity that allows more freedom of inquiry than others. From my point of view, your scientific friends are able to be scientists in spite of their religion, not because of it. I'm pretty familiar with the contents of the Bible, and I don't recall this sort of inquiry to be encouraged anywhere.

And I have to wonder - what if you successfully converted me to Christianity, but instead of choosing to be a Methodist, I instead became one of those flavors of fundamentalist who condemn your scientific friends for their hubris in "playing God"? When you finally meet your maker, would that count as a "win" or a "loss"?


Okay, I think I've dragged this on far enough. I have no idea if any of my readers made it this far. (I hope so!) I'll get down off of my soapbox now and let Ken do some poking.

And Ken, I've just realized you're from Georgia, the opposite side of the continent from me! I think I've spent a total of 3 days in Georgia, but I loved every day I was there.

"See You At The Pole" - Atheist Approved!

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is a Christian for-profit organization that uses litigation to oppose those who support certain rights - including abortion, same sex marriage, and sex education. They also litigate to blur the line between Church and State.

I've received a couple of self-important emails from the ADF on the subject of the annual gathering called "See You at the Pole" (SYATP). This event happens on the fourth Wednesday of September, every year. During this event students will gather at their school flagpole before the start of class in order to hold hands, pray together, and maybe read some scripture and sing a hymn. It is supposed to be a student initiated and student led gathering.

So the ADF's alert points out a very formal ADF legal memo about this event, and also references an ACLJ memo about this. The alert, and the memos, seem to imply that this student right was a hard won victory by the Christian forces of good.

Of course, they don't mention that the ACLU also approves of SYATP.

And you know what? I also approve of "See You at the Pole". Students have the right to pray, or sing, or read the Bible (silently or aloud). They can pray before tests and before their cafeteria meals. They can let their friends borrow their Bibles, or they can give them as gifts.

What the students can not do is disrupt class, or create a hostile environment for other students.

And what a school can not do is to show preference to one type of student over another. By "establishing" a preferred religion, a public school would be acting against the American Constitution, and in doing so would give a clear message that those students of one faith are "better" than students of different faiths, or without faith. Regardless of Constitutionality, this is clearly immoral.


So, I've got an offer to all of you good Christians who are cheering about this religious "Victory" in public schools:

I will happily help you pass out Bibles to any student who wants one.

I'll add a couple of caveats.

• I won't help you pass out Bibles on a public school campus or property. That is a clear breech of the Establishment Clause, and it indicates school-sanctioned favoritism toward one religion over others.


• I won't force, coerce or bribe any student to take a Bible. I realize that the Bible isn't for everyone, and urging it upon some people would be insulting.
  

So - how about it? Wouldn't this be a public relations coup? "President of Local Atheist Organization helps pass out Bibles to Schoolchildren!" Pastors, you could make this sound like a win over Satan himself during your Sunday sermon!

And yes, I'm being a bit glib here - but I'm also very serious. And I'll remind any pastor in the Fresno and Clovis area - if you preach that Atheists are trying to keep religion out of school, I'll call you on it. I'll do more than that - I'll help you make sure that any public school student has the right to his religion in school.

Bibles to Baghdad – the Subtle Crusade and why it breaks American law.

Religious groups have been exploiting the US Military Postal Service to flood Iraq and the surrounding region with bibles since shortly after the World Trade Center atrocity. These organized religious operations operate under the stated goal of sending bibles to the troops, but the results tend to imply another unstated goal, the creation of a “subtle” Crusade that witnesses to and attempts to convert Muslims in and around Iraq.

Before the invasion of Iraq one organization, Campus Crusade for Christ, through their Military Ministry set up a program that would allow anyone to send a solder something called a “Rapid Deployment Kit”. These kits each contain a New Testament Bible, a written 90-day prayer devotional, and a ‘how to’ booklet used to instruct solders in the methods of witnessing to others. In other words this is a ‘religious conversion kit’ designed to help Christians proselytize and it is meant to be given to new Christians to reinforce their conversion and assist them in witnessing to others.

Initially these kits were sent to soldiers wherever a solder or the family of a soldier requested. But the number of kits ‘deployed’ rapidly increased. To date, Campus Crusade for Christ boasts that over 1.8 million Rapid Deployment Kits have been sent to members of the US military. And while some of the Campus Crusade websites are vague about which countries these kits are being sent, other Campus Crusade websites strongly imply that they are all going to soldiers in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

1.8 million pocket sized bibles – that’s over 257 thousand bibles a year. There are about 150 thousand American troops in Iraq, and another 30 thousand in Afghanistan and Kuwait. Many of these soldiers are on their third or fourth rotation, and most troops have been deployed to the Iraq multi-national force at least twice.

This means that new bibles are coming in every year to soldiers who are likely to have already received one of these bibles during their last tour of duty. If every soldier serving in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan gladly accepted a brand new bible every year, there would still be a surplus of 77 thousand bibles per year.

This leads to the obvious question – where are all the extra “Rapid Deployment Kits” going?

Campus Crusade for Christ is not the only organization sending bibles to the Middle East through the US Military. Tim Todd Ministries, of Revival Fires fame, is sending bibles by the box to Iraq and Afghanistan. Tim Todd’s bibles seem to be designed to look like the standard Good News Translation Armed Forces Military Edition, but the cover is slightly different, and the bible contains, “… devotionals and study helps specifically for U.S. Military”. Another organization, the Open Window Foundation’s, “Operation Worship” set a goal to send a hundred thousand bibles to soldiers over a period of a hundred days.

Individuals, like Brad Blauser, have also sent bibles to Iraq. Blauser sent 550 Zondervan “Starting Point Study Bibles” in 2006, with a goal to send 6,000 bibles in 2007. I have no idea how many bibles he has sent since then.

Obviously Mr. Blauser’s operation isn’t of the same scale of Campus Crusade for Christ, but there are a lot of individuals like Mr. Blauser, and from speaking to my religious friends I’ve personally heard of two Fresno churches that are also sending bibles to Iraq. That’s an unscientific and statistically meaningless sample – but it is easy to assume that there are others doing the same thing. I’m guessing, but I would not be surprised to learn that half a million bibles and associated materials are being sent to US military members in Iraq and the surrounding area every year.


Is this legal?

Campus Crusade for Christ, Tim Todd Ministries, Operation Worship, and Brad Blauser all have something other than bibles in common. They are all breaking Federal law, and they are encouraging military members to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice – the laws to which all troops must abide.

The specific laws that they are breaking are the Federal Laws that provide for free or low-cost delivery of mail through the Military Postal System (MPS) – Title 39, Part 9, Chapter 3401 of Federal Code. This section details the way in which military members are allowed to post “free mail”. It also allows anyone located in the United States to post mail to military members serving overseas using domestic mail rates. Mail sent to APO / FPO addresses may be sent using standard postage – the mail is then collected at the APO or FPO and shipped using military transport to its final destination.

The Department of Defense Directive, Postal Manual DoD 4525.6-M (PDF) quotes Title 39 of the Federal Code as its authority to direct the actions of servicemen who work in Military Post Offices. This manual clearly states that military members are not allowed to receive mail as an “in care of” address for those who are not authorized to use the MPS.

Military members are not allowed to use the MPS as their own shipping pipeline for profit or non-profit purposes. For example, although military members or their spouses may be allowed to work from on-base housing, they are not allowed to ship products for their business through MPS. Mary Kay and Amway distribution through the MPS is strictly forbidden.

Even non-profit, charitable efforts are not authorized. Recently the Stars and Stripes Newspaper wrote about Operation Care, a grass roots effort to distribute donations from Americans to needy people in Afghanistan. Organized by military volunteers in Bagram Afghanistan, Operation Care solicited donations that were delivered through the Military Postal Service and then distributed to Afghanis. While commendable, it was against both Federal and military regulations.

In 2006, Operation Care processed 16 tons of goods. When this organization’s practices were brought to the attention of the Military Postal Service, the MPS ordered them to stop. From the follow-up Stars and Stripes article:

"Although Operation Care is a noble cause, it is in direct violation of multiple DoD (Department of Defense) Policies listed in the DoD Postal Manual 4525.6-M," wrote Army Col. David Ernst, deputy director of the Military Postal System Agency in an e-mail addressed to members of the group and various civilian and military officials.

"I appreciate your cooperation in helping to end the illegal use of the MPS to operate a business and transport humanitarian items for distribution," he wrote. "Please direct them to seek an alternative means to conduct Operation Care."

The military is actually being very kind to those who volunteer for Operation Care. It would have been well within their rights to bring those responsible before courts-martial. Military members involved are guilty of violating articles 92 and 134 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and could be subject to anything from reduction in rank, to imprisonment plus forfeiture of rank and benefits.

It would be possible, but more difficult to prosecute those civilians in America who organized the donations for Operation Care.

All of the organizations detailed here deliver bibles exclusively through the Military Postal Service.

This leads to the second obvious question – why are Christians getting this ‘free pass’ to flout the law?

The military does not like to be embarrassed. Article 134 forbids embarrassing actions by forbidding, “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces”. But maybe they just don't know what is going on?

At approximately a quarter-pound per Rapid Deployment Kit, it is difficult for the military to ignore that the MPS is shipping well over 30 tons of these kits each year. This number only accounts for the Campus Crusade for Christ’s shipments, the tonnage is likely doubled because other organizations use larger bibles that contain both the old and new testament. Operation Care’s mere 16 tons of delivered goods doesn’t come close in comparison.

Presumably the US military has noticed this drain on their resources. Operation Care was founded in 2006 and was noticed and warned in 2008. Campus Crusade for Christ’s effort has been ongoing since 2002, and they have received no equivalent warning. It is reasonable to assume that the US military is not embarrassed to assist with flooding bibles into to an Islamic country. This implies governmental approval of this subtle crusade.

And the supposition that "the troops need bibles" is somewhat faulty. Military chaplains may order bibles through the military supply system in order to give them to troops who ask for them. Although the supply system is slower than MPS, ordering bibles through it can be logistically planned for in advance.

So assuming that the US Military realizes that they are flooding Islamic areas with bibles, it could also be assumed that they approve of the practice. Perhaps I'm building a house of cards here, but the Christianization of the US armed forces has been well documented (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4).

I am all for military members getting what they want and need. Every soldier who wants a bible, or the Torah, or Talmud, or Qu'ran or any other religious text should be able to have one. And if the military supply system can't get a religious text to a solder then kind donations through the Military Postal Service should certainly take up the slack.

But just how many bibles should each soldier receive? And just what do these Christian agencies expect soldiers to do with all those surplus bibles?


I have written three other, shorter entries on the ongoing effort to flood Iraq with bibles, which can be read here. I am currently preparing one more entry on the subject of sending bibles to Iraq, so keep checking back.

Crossposted to ExChristian.net

More bibles for soldiers!

It looks like Austin Cline mentioned bibles to Iraq last year. So I'm not the first to speak of this.

But I think that Austin missed my own point, these bibles aren't for the Soldiers. There are just too many for them to be for the soldiers. These are special witnessing bibles, and will be used to recruit Islamic Iraqis.

Military Ministries also talks about the Rapid Deployment (bible) Kits that were mentioned in my entry about the Campus Crusade for Christ. They also mentioned the same 1.8 million bible number. Which I thought was odd until I found out that Military Ministry is actually a division of Campus Crusade for Christ!

Back in 2003 - World Net Daily ran with the story that thousands of troops in Iraq who were supposedly begging for bibles. WND talks about the Rapid Deployment Kit in this article, where they supposedly had an order for 40,000 bibles! According to WND:

Requests from commanders, chaplains, soldiers, sailors and airmen continue to pour in, including one scrawled message on a piece of cardboard which reads: "I have a Bible …but the guys in my unit don't have any. Can you send [Bibles] over?"

Christians asking for bibles to hand out to their friends. What happens when someone says, "no thanks"? You're working in close quarters with these people, do you keep proselytizing? Or do you respect their wishes?

CBN, Pat Robertson's group, also has an effort to send 100 thousand bibles in 100 days, all at no expense to themselves. Why should the church pay when they can have their followers do it? They still get to claim credit.

And this is just the Iraqi arena. There are groups that send bibles to soldiers everywhere, but this huge push, this immense effort is targeting troops in Iraq, and absolutely flooding the area!

Just how many bibles do our troops need? 2 per soldier, 5 per soldier?

I've already stated my reasoning for not sending bibles to our soldiers in Iraq.

I think that Tim Todd's ministry is sending bibles because it is a low-cost, easy to implement, and very flashy bit of religious advertisement that is supposed to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

But hey, just because a different religious organization is sending crates of bibles to our troops, doesn't mean that other religious groups can't duplicate that same unneeded effort.

I just noticed an email today from Campus Crusade for Christ. It's been sitting in my email box since mid-June. In this email, the director of donor relations for Campus Crusade speaks about all the requests they get to send bibles to soldiers. These requests aren't coming from the soldiers themselves - but from friends, family and concerned Christians. From this email:

Requests for Bibles for our troops continue to pour in. A recent note shares:

"My husband's cousin is in charge of a brigade in Iraq and we would like to send Bibles to his whole brigade. They have already lost a Sgt. We could probably find out where to send them. How much would this cost? I believe there are 700 men and women in all. We have been praying for a way to reach these soldiers. His cousin, a Lt. Col., is not saved so we pray for his salvation also. Thank you."

Meeting the tremendous need for God's Word among our men and women in uniform is only possible with the support of people like you. Since the beginning of this year, Campus Crusade for Christ's Military Ministry has been receiving requests for an average of close to 20,000 Rapid Deployment Kits per month.

This email links to a website that also says:

With the help of people like you, more than 1.8 million RDKs-each containing a pocket-sized New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs, a daily devotional, and a booklet that clearly shares the Gospel-have been distributed since September 2001. However, there remains much more to be done as requests for Bibles continue to pour in from soldiers, chaplains, military family members, and others.

I have one of these pocket sized New Testament bibles, perhaps not the Campus Crusade variety - but the equivalent. I picked it up from a table overflowing with bibles while stationed in South Korea. I have no idea what happened to the rest of the bibles on that table. I do know that out of my workshop, I was the only troop that picked one up.

But I have to ask, sending 257 thousand bibles per year to our troops in Iraq seems excessive. there are only about 150 thousand American military in Iraq right now. And it's not like we get 150 thousand new troops every year - these troops have often been rotated through Iraq on several tours.

So assuming that EVERY soldier in Iraq gets a brand new bible EVERY year, then where are the EXTRA 100,000 bibles per year going?

And this is just Campus Crusade for Christ's numbers. Remember, other religious groups are doing the same thing!

My opinion still stands - this is an easy to do, low cost, flashy method of attracting attention for your religious group. It is a fund raising bullet that looks great when religions ask believers for money. "Supplied 1.8 million bibles to our troops!" Wow! Look at the great work they're doing!

Never mind that half of those don't make it to the hands of any soldier.

And this leads to my second opinion. There is an ulterior motive here. There is a motive to flood a Islamic country with bibles in order to save Muslim souls for Christ. Perhaps if enough bibles get into the country, some one will take them.

To me, this speaks of both dishonesty and cowardice. Dishonest, because while a religion says a bible is going to a solder, the hope is that the solder will give it away to an Iraqi, perhaps as the soldier witnesses to the Iraqi. This borders on urging unconstitutional actions, and feels a little like coercion to me because the guy doing the witnessing is carrying a rifle.

And it is cowardly, because the religious groups involved don't have the testicles to travel to Iraq and hand out bibles themselves. They don't do it because they know that some Islamic Iraqis might use them for target practice.

I think that sending this many bibles to the troops in an Islamic country and pretending that they are NOT for Iraqi recruiting purposes is a lie.

But hey, I guess it's moral to lie in order to save someone's immortal soul.

So, how many other religious groups are sending bibles to Iraq? If Campus Crusade is doing it, and Tim Todd is doing it - how many others? How many bibles per year are going to Iraq? Easily a quarter of a million, just on these two ministries. Comment or email me with other organizations doing this.

I wouldn't be surprised if we're sending a million bibles per year to our poor bible-deprived troops in Iraq.

Oh No! The Troops need Bibles!

Tim Todd Ministries, "Revival Fires Newsletter" is breathlessly reporting a non-existent problem in order to drum up business for his organization.

According to Mr. Todd, from the newsletter:

Every day our soldiers put their life on the line for us in Iraq and
Afghanistan to stop this awful spread of international terrorism
against the United States. I believe the very least we can do is to
make sure they all have Bibles!

....

Our soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be sent into battle without Bibles!

Oh no! Our soldiers don't have Bibles! The Horror!

As someone who served in the US Air Force for 10 years - I find it really difficult to believe that Bibles are so hard to get. In fact, 3 of the Bibles that I currently own are from 3 different assignments. Keesler AFB, Camp Red Cloud, and Kadena AB.

Where can a military member get a Bible while on assignment? I got two of my Bibles from an Army / Air Force Exchange System (AAFES) bookstore. Neither were very expensive. Another was given to me by the USO.

But I wasn't holding a rifle on the front line - so I'll admit my experience probably isn't the same as a front-line soldier. Even so - Afghanistan and Iraq both have fully stocked AAFES PX / BX. For the troops nearby, it would be an easy matter to walk in and purchase a Bible during a little down time. And for those who are not near an AAFES, they would still have the occasional opportunity to do a little personal shopping. Use the AAFES Downrange Store Locator to find the nearest AAFES. Here's an image of part of the PX located in Bagram Afghanistan.

The military does make some provisions for members for free. When I was in Basic Training, I recall very clearly when the Chaplin told us that if anyone wanted a Bible, we were welcome to one. All we had to do was ask. There was even an official cross that we could ask for.

And if you're wondering where these items might come from - well they are provided by the military supply system! All it took was a word to the company clerk and you could also have one of these items in your possession. And if you didn't want to go through the official channels, a simple word to the military Chaplin would get you what you needed.

If you are in the military, you are probably already at least somewhat familiar with the military supply system. National Stock Numbers, catalogs. When I was active duty, our supply catalog was on microfiche, and it was huge! We were pretty darned happy when it was transferred to CD-Rom with a half-way decent search engine. (We spent some time seeing what sorts of outrageous items were available to be ordered. Beer of various sorts was fun to find. Hard liquor, dog supplies and even an entire horse was available!)

Now, the entire catalog is available online. You can find it here. (If you are in the military, use your military order system.) I took a moment to see what was available. Here's one publicly accessible portion of the supply system. In the "Name Keyword(s)" box, type the word "Bible" and hit 'Enter'. Oh my! Look at that - a page of results that include various versions of the Bible - and those have various covers too! You want a bible with a desert cameoflage cover? It's there! A bible map set, a Spanish bible? It's there too!

And what if we search for the word, "Necklace"? One of the hits is a wooden cross necklace. You could also search for crucifix, but that returns large (as in 6 foot tall) crucifixes used for chapels.

There is something a bit odd. When I searched for the Koran, I got no results. Neither did I get anything from searching for the Quran or Qur'an. Islam did get some results, but those results dealt with how a soldier might handle someone of the Islamic faith. Muslim seemed to give results at first, but those led to dead ends. I guess if you are a US soldier of the Islamic faith you won't have the same opportunity to worship. Maybe Tim Todd should be sending copies of the Qur'an?

The keyword "Jewish" returns several hits... but "Atheist" and "Atheism" returns nothing.


My point in all of this isn't just to show that sending Bibles to troops isn't necessary. I'm trying to point out that there are several ulterior motives that religious ministries are indulging when they hyperventalate about "Soldiers needing Bibles".

First, this is a solution to a non-existent problem. There are enough Bibles in country for any troop who wants one. It might be a bit difficult to distribute the bibles to individuals, but that would be due to a lack of interested volunteers. And distribution is a problem regardless of the origin of the bibles.

Second, sending bibles has a high return on investment for Tim Todd. Not much effort is required for a result that includes a great deal of self-congratulation. With a little effort a religious group can look very good, which is also good for business.

The bibles are purchased by parishioners, then delivered to an APO / FPO point, where the military then subsidizes the cost of delivery. Tim Todd pays domestic postage only - if that. And I'm sure his costs are offset by other donations.

Third, this program is aimed at converting soldiers when they hit their lowest point. A soldier drowning in war will grasp at any stray to stay afloat. These soldiers don't need fairytales and empty platitudes - they need help. They need friends, an ear to listen to them, professional counselors to keep them sane.

Fourth, this program is divisive. Evangelical methods create evangelists. The military has already demonstrated that members will apply a great deal of peer-pressure to the non-Christian. In some cases, outright discrimination takes place. Divisiveness is NOT a trait you want to encourage in a team that is supposed to work together in a firefight.

Lastly, this program will saturate a non-Christian country with Bibles. When there are more bibles than there are soldiers who want them, evangelical minded soldiers may try giving them to the local Islamic population. It's for their own good, right? They won't mind.

You want to send a soldier something? Don't bother with sending them a Bible. If they're near an AAFES then send them a gift certificate. If they are not, then send a donation through the USO. You can also just send our soldiers a message of support.

That makes a lot more sense than sending a Bible, or worse, putting a yellow sticker on your SUV.