iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Chris Rodda

Chris Rodda

Posted: December 10, 2008 04:31 PM

Mr. President-elect: Please Don't Allow Pete Geren To Be Kept On


Reading an article in The Washington Post last week speculating about who will and won't be retained in the incoming administration's Defense Department, I was quite alarmed by the possibility that Preston "Pete" Geren might be kept on as Secretary of the Army.

In 2004, Geren participated in the infamous Pentagon Christian Embassy video, a promotional video filmed inside the Pentagon that, at the request of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), led to an investigation by the Department of Defense Inspector General. In July 2007, the IG issued a 45-page report finding seven officers, including four generals, guilty of violating a number of DoD ethics regulations. But, because of the IG's narrow choice of which regulations to focus on, the civilian DoD officials who appeared in the video, including then Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Geren, got off scot free. The civilian officials, of course, were not subject to the ethics regulations regarding the endorsement of a non-federal entity while in uniform. Geren was also exonerated of the charge of using his official position to endorse a non-federal entity because the video did not identify him by his precise title, but only as the "Honorable Pete Geren, Presidential Appointee." The IG also chose to completely evade the issue of religion in its investigation by plucking the catchall words "non-federal entity" from the regulations that were violated, although those same regulations do specifically name certain types of entities that cannot be endorsed by DoD personnel, including sectarian religious organizations. So, even the charges against the military officers who were found guilty were essentially placed on the same level as endorsing a car dealership or some other miscellaneous private enterprise while in uniform. Apparently, the IG just didn't see what the prohibition of government promotions of religion had to do with DoD personnel participating in a fundraising video at the Pentagon promoting a religious organization and a particular religion.

The Christian Embassy endorsed by Secretary Geren in the video is an arm of Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC), a fundamentalist Christian organization whose far reaching Military Ministry has become entrenched in every part of the military. Geren, who was a Congressman from Texas from 1989 to 1997, first became involved with Christian Embassy through their Capitol Hill branch. He continued this relationship when he came to the Pentagon in 2001, joining the organization's Senior Executive Fellowship. To understand why having a Secretary of the Army with long time ties to any part of this organization is of such great concern, here are a few examples showing what the goals of CCC are for our military.

Particularly targeted are basic training installations and the service academies. The following explanation of this "gateway" strategy appeared on CCC's Military Ministry website in 2002:

"Young recruits are under great pressure as they enter the military at their initial training gateways. The demands of drill instructors push recruits and new cadets to the edge. This is why they are most open to the 'good news.' We target specific locations, like Lackland AFB and Fort Jackson, where large numbers of military members transition early in their career. These sites are excellent locations to pursue our strategic goals."


According to Maj. Gen. Bob Dees, U.S. Army (ret.), the Executive Director of CCC's Military Ministry, in the October 2005 issue of the organization's Life and Leadership newsletter:

"We must pursue our particular means for transforming the nation -- through the military. And the military may well be the most influential way to affect that spiritual superstructure. Militaries exercise, generally speaking, the most intensive and purposeful indoctrination program of citizens...."


One of CCC's "strategic goals" is to "Evangelize and Disciple All Enlisted Members of the US Military. Utilize Ministry at each basic training center and beyond. Transform our culture through the US Military." Another goal is to transform the military into a force of "government paid missionaries." Describing the duties of a position at Lackland Air Force Base and Fort Sam Houston, for example, the Military Ministry website stated:

"Responsibilities include working with Chaplains and Military personnel to bring lost soldiers closer to Christ, build them in their faith and send them out into the world as government paid missionaries."


Similar statements can be found for each of the many CCC Military Ministry many divisions, like this one from their Valor ministry, which targets future officers on ROTC campuses:

"The Valor ROTC cadet and midshipman ministry reaches our future military leaders at their initial entry points on college campuses, helps them grow in their faith, then sends them to their first duty assignments throughout the world as 'government-paid missionaries for Christ.'"


A former CCC program director at the Air Force Academy, Scott Blum, said in a promotional video filmed at the Academy, CCC's purpose is to "make Jesus Christ the issue at the Academy" and for the cadets to be "government paid missionaries" by the time they leave.

Enlisted basic trainees at Fort Jackson, the Army's largest basic training installation, are taught in a CCC program called "God's Basic Training" that "The Military = 'God's Ministers'" and that one of their responsibilities is "To punish those who do evil" as "God's servant, an angel of wrath." The Fort Jackson CCC Military Ministry also had a website on which group photos of trainees with their rifles in one hand and Bibles in the other were posted, with captions such as "This was the first week our recruits brought their rifles with them. This is training to always have your weapon with you. They also proudly display their Sword (Bible)." This website was taken down after being exposed by MRFF.

In a presentation titled "God and the Military," originally released in 1997 by Nelson and Hudson Publishing, and re-released in 2005 for distribution by CCC's Military Ministry, the speaker opens with the following story to an audience of Texas A&M cadets and an assortment of officers from the various branches of the military.

"I, a number of years ago, was speaking at the University of North Texas -- it happens to be my alma mater, up in Denton, Texas -- and I was speaking to an ROTC group up there, and when I stepped in I said, 'It's good to be speaking to all you men and women who are in the ministry,' and they all kind of looked at me, and I think they wondered if maybe I had found the wrong room, or if they were in the wrong room, and I assured them that I was speaking to men and women in the ministry, these that were going to be future officers."


The first question in the study guide that accompanies this video is:

"If you are in the military, then you are also in the m__________."


The discovery of Secretary Geren's participation in the CCC Christian Embassy video was not the first time that this DoD official was encountered by MRFF founder and president Mikey Weinstein. In 2005, Geren was Acting Secretary of the Air Force, overseeing the Air Force's less than adequate response to Weinstein's allegations of non-Christian cadets at the Air Force Academy, including his own sons, being severely pressured and harassed by evangelical Christians.

This is Weinstein's account of his 2005 interaction with Geren:

"In July of 2005, the Air Force's Deputy Chief of the Chaplains Corps, Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson, boldly asserted in a front page story in the New York Times that the Air Force's official policy would continue to be to reserve its right 'to evangelize the unchurched.' I immediately registered my shock, telephonically, directly with Acting USAF Secretary Geren. Further, I demanded that the Air Force immediately retract this completely unconstitutional religious policy statement of evangelical Christian supremacy, which must have been vetted beforehand, as it had appeared in the New York Times -- the one newspaper most despised by the Pentagon.

"Geren and I spoke several times on the phone over the next several weeks. What disturbed me the most was that he was absolutely clueless as to the constitutional illegality of his service's ignominious declaration/intention of evangelizing the unchurched. I even hired a law firm to press our demand of official retraction. Our legal team actually met with Geren in his Pentagon office and delivered my message of 'take back what you said or we'll sue you in federal court' to both Geren and the USAF General Counsel, who also attended. They kept telling us to wait while they pondered our demand. We did wait. After the eighty-eighth day passed, I gave them something new to ponder; how to reply to the federal lawsuit we hit them with. Sixteen months later, when MRFF saw that Geren was a star in the now infamous Christian Embassy video, none of us were surprised at all, given what had transpired with Geren's leadership malfeasance vis-a-vis the prior dustup just described. Keeping him on as Army Secretary is a travesty of unimaginable magnitude."


Another area of concern are the indications that Geren, like many who subscribe to the views of organizations such as CCC, may see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a religious struggle, and that our own religious freedom here in America is somehow dependent on victory in these Muslim countries. There were strong signs of a belief in this specious threat to religious freedom in America in the considerable amount of attention devoted to the subject by Geren in his commencement address at this year's West Point graduation.

Geren began this part of his address with the words "Thomas Jefferson would understand the threat we face today -- tyranny in the name of religion," quoted a few words from Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and then continued:

"Jefferson's ideal of religious freedom and individual liberty stands in stark contrast to the malignant vision of religious oppression and the murderous practices of the Taliban and Al Qaeda -- to the hatred that murdered 3,000 people on 9/11 and continues its butchery today.

"Two hundred years after Jefferson penned these words, your sons and daughters are fighting to protect our citizens and people around the world from zealots who would 'restrain,' 'molest,' 'burden' and cause to 'suffer' those who do not share their religious beliefs, deny us whom they call 'infidels' our unalienable rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Your sons and daughters -- our Soldiers -- stand against a threat to liberty and life that is as old as civilization, in a cause that shaped the foundation of our Nation, and against an enemy that seeks to take us back to the future, and establish an old world order of darkness and oppression. ..."


Geren was named Acting Secretary of the Army by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in March 2007, while the DoD Inspector General's investigation of the Christian Embassy was still going on. Geren was then nominated by Bush as Secretary of the Army, and confirmed by the Senate on July 13, 2007 -- a week prior to the release of the IG's report that, as explained above, let Geren off the hook. The timing of this raises questions as to whether or not the outcome of the IG's investigation would have had any effect whatsoever on Geren's nomination had the IG not exonerated him, considering that the officers who were found guilty didn't even get a slap on the wrist. In fact, several of them were quickly promoted, most notably Maj. Gen. Robert L. Caslen.

Despite the IG's recommendation that that "appropriate corrective action" be taken against Caslen, a brigadier general at the time of the Christian Embassy scandal, no action at all was taken. Caslen remained in his position of Commandant of Cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point until May 2, 2008. His promotion to major general was confirmed by Senate on April 29, 2008, and he was appointed to the prestigious position of Commanding General of the 25th Infantry Division.

During Caslen's tenure as Commandant of Cadets at West Point, MRFF was flooded with reports from cadets of increased religious pressure at the Academy, and a June 2008 New York Times article about religion at the service academies reported that the seven cadets, two officers, and a former chaplain interviewed for the article "said that religion, especially evangelical Christianity, was a constant at the academy," but that "most of their complaints center on Maj. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, until recently the academy's top military leader..."

Caslen, who, in the Christian Embassy video said of the organization's Flag Officers' Fellowship, "we're the aroma of Jesus Christ," is also the current president of the Officers' Christian Fellowship (OCF), an organization consisting of about 15,000 officers, with chapters on virtually every U.S. military installation worldwide.

The stated mission of the OCF, which not only endorses CCC's Military Ministry overall but has entered into a partnership with its Valor ROTC ministry, is to:

"Create a spiritually transformed U.S. military, with Ambassadors for Christ in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit."


With Secretary Gates staying on in the new administration, MRFF is strongly requesting that both President-elect Obama and his Defense Secretary make a serious effort to rid our military of unconstitutional religious activity, and to weed out those DoD officials who have been complicit in promoting or endorsing what has in recent years evolved into a full-fledged constitutionally prohibited religious test for countless members of our armed forces.

Replacing Secretary Geren would be a very good start.

Reading an article in The Washington Post last week speculating about who will and won't be retained in the incoming administration's Defense Department, I was quite alarmed by the possibility that Pr...
Reading an article in The Washington Post last week speculating about who will and won't be retained in the incoming administration's Defense Department, I was quite alarmed by the possibility that Pr...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
cyrano1
08:12 PM on 12/12/2008
didaskalos:

My intent would be to clarify the concerns of many of us who understand that supporting the original (possibly well-meaning) intentions of one person and making it acceptable policy may, over time, become re-interpreted and broadened into a more universal dictate due to the more strident ideological views of those who follow - particularly when it becomes part of hiring code.

Source: the entire history of Christianity and its ever-expanding branches.

People who wield power don't usually suffer from a deficiency in their ability to influence policy through the choices they make.
12:26 AM on 12/13/2008
I understand that concern and agree that it should not become part of the hiring code. That is where the Constitution provide the restrictive stand against potential excesses if and when they occur. If, however, in the desire to hire and promote the best qualified people and those people happen to be Christians with high ethical and moral standards, this could give a false positive as to why people are hired and promoted and not necessarily indicative of policy changes based on an individuals personal ideology.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:46 AM on 12/12/2008
Sooner or later, troops thus propagandized are bound to turn on the country, if the country turns away from (their fanatical brand of) Christianity. Or their commanders may decide that some Muslim country needs to be taken out to protect The Christian West, and off they'll go to World War III. This is an extremely dangerous situation which needs to be stopped, not that I think anyone in high places has the stomach for the fight.
11:23 AM on 12/12/2008
I will content that it is not propaganda (as it is not denominationally specific) but rather an issue of worldview. The Judeo-christian worldview is not, as you assume, a fanatical brand of Christianity. Understand the nature of that biblical worldview as manifested in the context of New Testament Christianity, does not allow for military initiatives that you described. In fact, then would be the ones to STOP such and action that might occur if there is a pervision/destortion that are outside of the biblical ethics and morality, like the Crusades.
01:32 PM on 12/12/2008
Understanding two foundations concepts of Islam ... dar al Harb (the house of war) and dar al Islam (the house of Islam or the house of peace) are essential to understanding the context of Geren's commencement comments. From a Qu'ranic/Muslim perspecitve, a person is in either one of the two above-mentioned houses... and if you are not the house of Islam, you are in the house of war (war will be waged upon you) until you come into the house of Islam. It is politically incorrect, but historically and epistamologically true that Islam is a religion of the sword. This is the objective reality of what our troops have been facing. While we, as the US military to not wage a holy war, we are fighting against those who view it as a holy (religious) war.

The Christian militray men will fight to defend the Constitution of the US and the freedoms that we cherish including their freedom of religion and the freedom for Jews, Muslims, and whoever to practice their freedom of religion. For the Christain, a central teaching is to proclaim and invite (evangelism) through persuasion, not through violence or coresion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SirReal1
11:48 PM on 12/11/2008
Interesting word choice didaskalos. I'm not sure I "see this guy as a threat", so much as I see him, and his ideology, as a problem for the military.

The military, for all its rhetoric and imagery, is meant to be a fighting force that operates more on the basis of pragmatism than ideological fervor. It actually is detrimental to the mission if PVT. Snuffy BELIEVES he can take out an entire Platoon of enemy soldiers by himself. PVT. Snuffy is one element in a larger force, with a specific mission within the application of that force. When he BELIEVES that he alone is capable of "getting the job done" he tends to disavow the role he plays in the larger design of his superiors.

That is only one of the problems this ideology promotes.

The other is the tendency of those who combine ideology and RANK. Given the degree of emphasis the ideology plays on the character of Secretary Geren, and his stated GOAL of evangelizing the Military Services, one could reasonably wonder if his ideological beliefs would play an active role in his decisions of "who to promote" and "who not to promote". If the military were to begin "promoting those whose ideological beliefs are harmonious to his" rather that "the most deserving", it could lead to a "true leadership" void that would take years to repair.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SirReal1
11:54 PM on 12/11/2008
Given that we just went through 8 years of "cronyism" in the selection of individuals to fill high level Government positions, and we are now reaping the outcome of those decisions, I, for one, would prefer that promotion in the Military remain "merit based" rather that ideologically based.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Chris Rodda
10:57 AM on 12/12/2008
Our new president has the power to really make a difference here. While many people consider judicial appointments an important factor in their choice for president, what most don't realize is that general and flag officers are another category of offices that require a presidential nomination. Just like federal judges, all officers at this level have to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, for both promotions and appointments. I'm pretty optimistic that Obama isn't going to be nominating generals like Robert Caslen for promotions and prestigious appointments less than a year after they were found guilty of ethics violations by the Inspector General.
11:45 AM on 12/12/2008
The "ideology" (I would choose the word "worldview") that he has is not incompatible with the military. I would suggest that it is compatible up to the point that a soldier is commanded to engange in illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior. This, IMO, would be the exception as the motto in that realm generally (if not speficically to certain services) "Duty, Honor, Country."

I agree with you that if he promotes people based on ideology RATHER than merit, THAT would be a problem and the basis for disqualification. I have yet to hear that this was the basis for oppostion to the man or have yet to hear of any evidence to that end.
10:15 AM on 12/11/2008
You have got to be kidding me ... you feel that this guy is a threat because he has strong Christian convictions and is concerned for moral and ethical integrity and the spiritual well-being of troops? So he has a plan and wants to take advantage of existing structures to do good for both his troops and his faith, would you expect less from a military man? CCC says the same thing in all of their different ministry outreaches whether on a university campus, the military, or whatever. This is an individual person supporting something good in which he believes. We need MORE men like him!
06:45 PM on 12/11/2008
No, he's not a threat because of his "Christian convictions," but because he sees no limits on the exercise of his personal religious convictions. Whether pushing the Prince of Peace into a military role is "Christian" at all, is another question.

From your response, I take it that you approve wholeheartedly of the Crusades, and would like to see some modern version of them back in vogue.

You DO approve of his "plan" and "tak[ing] advantage of existing structures" to "do good." But your definitions of existing structures and even of "good" are hopelessly compromised by blind ideology.

The "existing structures" in this case are specifically purpose-driven, and that purpose is to support the government's policies -- NOT Gawd's. I say again: Gawd and Caesar have separate spheres of activity, and Gawd (Himself) has said they are not to be mixed. Sorry, but the military belongs to Caesar; not to Gawd.

As to "doing good," that's a value judgment of the first order. For instance, I happen to think that encouraging religious delusions is an insult to free, independent thought, and personal responsibility. But I don't go indoctrinating service members with my own version of "religion."
11:11 AM on 12/12/2008
Did you watch the video link? I didn't see any "subversion" by the gentleman in question or the others who spoke, military, diplomat, or congressman. There is a big difference between government imposition upon religion and religious individuals trying to influence individuals who work in the realm of government service.

Quite frankly, if you want a military without godly (moral) influences you will either have despotism of either a communist or facist nature. No I am against the Crusades as they were a biblically unjustifiable church-originating military action. These Chrsitan military men, congressmen, and diplomats are offering the moral/ethical foundations to help people do their jobs well and attend to the personal spiritual needs of those who are interested.

Yes, doing good is a value judgment ... I don't deny it, I only challenge you and everyone else to recognize that we ALL have "value judgments" that we bring to our jobs. I don't understand the irrational intensity of opposition to this man who has been doing his job well and is honest about his worldview. I would much rather have men like him who have values of integrity, truth, and concern for the personal well-being of others (imperfect as they are) in positions of leadership at all levels of government service. Why? Because I can count on their integrity to NOT FORCE their worldview, but only to persuade. Watching the video clip really brought balance to this slanted article ... I glad that they linked to it.
06:56 PM on 12/11/2008
And another mistake you make, is in portraying a person in a position of power as "an individual person supporting something good in which he believes."

Not so. Not at all.

That description would fit someone (anonymously) putting money in a collection plate, or working (in civilian clothes, and without reference to any office) to hand out food to the poor. These are both Christian activities, IF they are done with no sense of personal gain or promotion. Since Gawd "knows" our hearts, intention is everything.

But if such actions are done in subversion of established principles of non-interference of government with church, or of church with government, then they are definitely NOT done with no sense of gain -- even though the "gain" in this case is on behalf of the church itself, intruding into government's proper sphere of action.

And if the "individual" in question is not acting "individually," but with the weight of secular power behind him, then your preferred definition of his actions crashes and burns with a bright light.
11:34 AM on 12/12/2008
Freedom of speech and freedom of association do not terminate with government service. He never claims that his personal beliefs are representative of the US govenment on any of its services. The FACT of the military caplinacy is evidence that the spiritual realm is not prohibited in the realm of secular government (this includes Muslim chaplins).