Here's a topic to stir a debate ...

At Speicher base in Iraq, US Army Spec. Jeremy Hall got permission from a chaplain in August to post fliers announcing a meeting for atheists and other nonbelievers. When the group gathered, Specialist Hall alleges, his Army major supervisor disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against him, including blocking his reenlistment in the Army...

... Several conservative Christian ministries publicly proclaim an evangelistic aim "to transform the nations of the world through the militaries of the world," and they are active at US military installations in many countries. (See www.militaryministry.org or militarymissionsnetwork.org.) ...

Are U.S. troops being force-fed Christianity?
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/10...&frame=true

Comments guys?

Kindly,

Sean

Armies have Chaplains for matters of faith, that is what they get paid for.

Soldiers get paid to do soldiery stuff, and that is what Spec Hall should have been doing. Evangelising your personal faith does not take priority over your promise to an employer to do your job.

This is my humble opinion.

Then the chaplain was at fault for not recognising his/her commitment to organise this meeting himself/herself?

I'm aware that some military chaplains try to provide a multi-faith service for the troops. However, if a chaplain wishes to delegate any responsibility onto one of the troops in his/her command then that should be recognised. While this doesn't necessarily count as being force-fed Christianity, it was a case of discrimination due to beliefs (if the allegation of disruption and the threat to the Specialist's career is true). No one is stating the Specialist was a poor soldier or let his belief interfere with or take priority over his duties as a soldier, so your argument in that case is with basis.

I'd be interested to know if the Chaplain spoke in defence of the meeting?