Has Christianity Been Outlawed in the US Army?

Barack Obama's administration has just released a statement stating that any American soldier who openly professes his Christianity can now be subject of a court-martial and may even face imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge. That apparently also applies to military chaplains in in the military.

That statement was released to Fox News on the 6th of May:

Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense... Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis.

Clearly, all this either stands or falls or what exactly is meant by "proselytization." The Obama government realizes this. There has been specific talk about proselytization in terms of "coercion and the abuses of power to force religion on others". Nevertheless, I doubt that this is really about literal coercion or abuses of power because American Muslims, both inside the army and activists on the outside, have been agitating for this policy.

In other words, any talk of Christianity, any wearing of crucifixes in public, or even the holding of a Bible, will have been -- and has been -- deemed "coercion and an abuse of power" by Muslims both within the Army and outside. In fact, Muslims in Muslim/Islamic countries believe that any outward showing of Christianity, from the wearing of crucifixes to the very existence of churches, constitutes the "abuse" of Islam (or Muslims).

It is no doubt the case, then, that absurd and grotesque phrases like "spiritual rape", which have been used in this case, come directly from Muslims both inside the army and from their activist helpers on the outside.

In the UK, Muslims have also complained about crucifix wearing, Bibles, etc. They have not yet, at least on a large scale, been vocal about the existence of churches in or even near Muslim areas. This partly accounts for the frequent and ubiquitous vandalization of churches which has occurred both in and near Muslim suburbs in the UK. (Bradford and Keighley, in northern England, have a big problem with such examples of Islamic supremacism.)

Some critics of this policy have spoken about an "atheist agenda" behind Obama's policy. I think it's more likely a case of it being a Muslim/Islam-appeasement agenda. (Though, of course, atheist proselytizers have been involved in all this.) The point is, however, that if it were only the activism of atheists involved, I doubt that the policy would have come to fruition. (I don't know if Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. But I doubt that he's a hard-core atheist.) Therefore the prime culprits would have undoubtedly been Muslims both inside and outside the Army, as well as the Muslim Lobby in the U.S. generally.

Does the American government have the same attitude to Muslims proselytizing in the U.S. Army? I doubt that Muslims would have the audacity or courage to do so in that institution. However, they certainly have the audacity and courage to do-the-dawah outside the U.S. Army: all the way from inside the White House to the streets of New York.

Islam itself is the most obsessively proselytizing religion ever known. It is incumbent on every Muslim, not only preachers or clerics, to practice dawah -- proselytize to the kuffar on behalf of Islam. (Hence the strong interest in the "interfaith movement" from Muslims.)

Strictly speaking, in a Christian country can you really proselytize for Christianity anyway? The word usually refers to people pushing their religion onto those who either have no religion or who have another religion. Most soldiers in the U.S. Army will be Christians. So where's the proselytizing? (Maybe a Protestant can proselytize to a Catholic and vice versa. Nonetheless, that doesn't matter because this case most certainly isn't about such inter-Christian examples.)

People won't need to be told that non-Islamic "proselytizing", by non-Muslims, in all Muslim/Islamic countries is severely dealt with -- often by death. Foreign "missionaries" in Muslim lands won't usually be killed. However, the subjects of Muslim countries are often killed, imprisoned, or tortured (via sharia law) for spreading any non-Islamic religion; especially for spreading Christianity.

So perhaps Obama should take action on CAIR: the American branch of the global Muslim Brotherhood. This organization is the most systematic and ubiquitous proselytizing outfit in the whole of the U.S. Not only that. It takes its proselytizing directly to the White House, the army, the New York Times... everywhere. In effect, then, what has happened here is that Muslims have in a sense carried out an Islamic proselytizing mission to stop Christian proselytizing in the U.S. Army.

Barack Obama's administration has just released a statement stating that any American soldier who openly professes his Christianity can now be subject of a court-martial and may even face imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge. That apparently also applies to military chaplains in in the military.

That statement was released to Fox News on the 6th of May:

Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense... Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis.

Clearly, all this either stands or falls or what exactly is meant by "proselytization." The Obama government realizes this. There has been specific talk about proselytization in terms of "coercion and the abuses of power to force religion on others". Nevertheless, I doubt that this is really about literal coercion or abuses of power because American Muslims, both inside the army and activists on the outside, have been agitating for this policy.

In other words, any talk of Christianity, any wearing of crucifixes in public, or even the holding of a Bible, will have been -- and has been -- deemed "coercion and an abuse of power" by Muslims both within the Army and outside. In fact, Muslims in Muslim/Islamic countries believe that any outward showing of Christianity, from the wearing of crucifixes to the very existence of churches, constitutes the "abuse" of Islam (or Muslims).

It is no doubt the case, then, that absurd and grotesque phrases like "spiritual rape", which have been used in this case, come directly from Muslims both inside the army and from their activist helpers on the outside.

In the UK, Muslims have also complained about crucifix wearing, Bibles, etc. They have not yet, at least on a large scale, been vocal about the existence of churches in or even near Muslim areas. This partly accounts for the frequent and ubiquitous vandalization of churches which has occurred both in and near Muslim suburbs in the UK. (Bradford and Keighley, in northern England, have a big problem with such examples of Islamic supremacism.)

Some critics of this policy have spoken about an "atheist agenda" behind Obama's policy. I think it's more likely a case of it being a Muslim/Islam-appeasement agenda. (Though, of course, atheist proselytizers have been involved in all this.) The point is, however, that if it were only the activism of atheists involved, I doubt that the policy would have come to fruition. (I don't know if Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. But I doubt that he's a hard-core atheist.) Therefore the prime culprits would have undoubtedly been Muslims both inside and outside the Army, as well as the Muslim Lobby in the U.S. generally.

Does the American government have the same attitude to Muslims proselytizing in the U.S. Army? I doubt that Muslims would have the audacity or courage to do so in that institution. However, they certainly have the audacity and courage to do-the-dawah outside the U.S. Army: all the way from inside the White House to the streets of New York.

Islam itself is the most obsessively proselytizing religion ever known. It is incumbent on every Muslim, not only preachers or clerics, to practice dawah -- proselytize to the kuffar on behalf of Islam. (Hence the strong interest in the "interfaith movement" from Muslims.)

Strictly speaking, in a Christian country can you really proselytize for Christianity anyway? The word usually refers to people pushing their religion onto those who either have no religion or who have another religion. Most soldiers in the U.S. Army will be Christians. So where's the proselytizing? (Maybe a Protestant can proselytize to a Catholic and vice versa. Nonetheless, that doesn't matter because this case most certainly isn't about such inter-Christian examples.)

People won't need to be told that non-Islamic "proselytizing", by non-Muslims, in all Muslim/Islamic countries is severely dealt with -- often by death. Foreign "missionaries" in Muslim lands won't usually be killed. However, the subjects of Muslim countries are often killed, imprisoned, or tortured (via sharia law) for spreading any non-Islamic religion; especially for spreading Christianity.

So perhaps Obama should take action on CAIR: the American branch of the global Muslim Brotherhood. This organization is the most systematic and ubiquitous proselytizing outfit in the whole of the U.S. Not only that. It takes its proselytizing directly to the White House, the army, the New York Times... everywhere. In effect, then, what has happened here is that Muslims have in a sense carried out an Islamic proselytizing mission to stop Christian proselytizing in the U.S. Army.