General Petraeus's Spiritual Literary Endorsement—More Controversy We Don't Need

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Gen Petraeus has just as much right to recommend a book as you do to not read it! For pete sake, grow up AMERICA!
As long as our Chaplain's are watched, as they are, to ensure they follow military practice and to encourage and exort our soldiers, you have nothing to worry about.
If a Wicca book had been recommended, would you have felt better?
85% of America professes some form of Christian belief.

Deb of LA 4:30PM June 30, 2009

I think there is a great deal of confusion on this topic and certainly political motives by many, especially Weinstein.
As a non-Christian soldier, I don’t recall anyone appointing Weinstein as my spokesman or the protector of my religious rights in the Army.
If you look at the words on the cover, it clearly states "it should be in every rucksack for those times when soldiers need spiritual energy." Let’s look at the words very carefully.
It should be…doesn’t say will or must. Not an order.
Be in every rucksack…last I looked, not every soldier carries a rucksack around with them all the time.
For those times when soldiers need spiritual energy maybe they will look at this book. If I am not looking for any spiritual energy, why would I even bother reading it? I most certainly won’t go into the book store and walk down the aisle that displays these books unless I am in market for one.
Last time I looked in my rucksack, it wasn’t there.
Last time I checked, they weren’t passing them out when you receive your equipment.
Didn’t get issued to me when I deployed to Iraq, twice.
Isn’t being paid for by the Army to give me one.
Now, if I were of the Christian faith and perhaps if I were interested or looking for another book besides for the New Testament edition of my choice, maybe I would be interested in this book, but again, maybe not.
Free choice still exists within the military on what I buy and read and what I determine is right for me as to faith.
Oh by the way, last time I checked, each soldier packs his or her own rucksack and determines what goes in it besides what the Army provided me to meet my mission.
So, since the book isn’t Army equipment, doubt that it will be included in the rucksacks anytime soon, unless of course someone chooses to do so.
Weinstein needs to get a grip on reality and climb down off his high horse. Maybe he (Weinstein) is setting himself up to go into politics or maybe he needs to check himself into rehab.

nonchristiansoldier of FL 7:29AM August 23, 2008

Bonnie Erbe must be suffering writer's block to publish something like this. It's much ado about nothing. The military provides a support base for soldiers who seek out spritual guidance but it is never mandatory and the majority of soldiers keep their religious beliefs private. Chaplains are the most unobtrusive members of the military but they are always available to assist soldiers when asked and they do a fine job of it. The military goes to great lengths to provide this kind of support to a variety of religious beliefs. During the days of the draft, we had just about everything one could imagine and to contradict the writer from California, the Army found Kosher food and Jewish Chaplains for the Orthodox, professed Sikhs were allowed to wear traditional headdress with the Army uniform, Catholic Chaplains assisted Mormons in religious services, and so on. It is even better nowadays. If any "preferential" extra effort is mounted, it is to the non-Christian members. I watched the Chaplains walk the corridors in hospital in Vietnam going from bed to bed asking if the wounded needed anything - call home, etc, but there were no Bible thumpers. It is absurd that General Petreaus' comment would cause this much criticism and politically oriented hatred to percolate up. The country has more important problems to solve.

Heinrich of SC 1:42PM August 22, 2008

Chris didn't complain about being asked to *tolerate* homosexuals, he pointed out that you (closet liberal masquerading as "moderate") expect him to *accept* them when his religion tells him that their behavior is wrong. I'm an atheist, so I simply see their behavior as unsuccessful--but it's their selection, voluntary or not. I see no reason why they should be allowed to impose it on him. You wish to re-define legal terms and social norms to create a new victim class. I demur. I don't mind homosexuals, and I don't envy them, either.
Tolerance requires us to do business with one another without restrictions based on considerations irrelevant to the transaction. That's fine with me. Tolerance does not extend to allowing deviants to confuse and recruit vulnerable children from public school classrooms.
As for "green," it no longer means "opposed to needless pollution." It means accepting indoctrination from innumerate ex-VPs. (Come on--a theology school dropout?) I'm an engineer, I don't accept unvalidated computer models in preference to real data. Algore has that luxury.
As for abortion: No one has ever denied your right to refrain from owning a slave. By your logic, to deny that choice to others would be an imposition. (The structure of your argument, though not its premise, caused some unpleasantness among the several states of the Union between 1860 and 1865.) Personally, I can identify a number of instances where I believe abortion is appropriate, but I would argue for due process, even for developing human beings who have not yet extended a shoulder outside of their mother's body.
Imputing patriotism (or lack of it) to views that do not touch on the subject suggest that you have a very confused notion of what the term means.
Your statement that separation of church and state is a Constitutional guarantee makes it clear that you have not given the document much study. That's OK if you are a civilian. In that case, you have the right to be ignorant. It's not OK if you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
You inferred that Chris has not served in the military (on what basis I cannot descry) and offer an opinion on the effect of spiritual support to military members. While my experience in the U.S. Navy tells me that your opinion is wrong, you may have different experience. If you do, then you are condemned by the previous paragraph. If you don't, you have no business offering an opinion about the effect of religious support to young people facing battle. Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to offer your opinion, but reasonable people will ignore it.
You really went off the deep end when you started talking about racial purity. Muslims don't care about it. I don't care about it. I doubt that Chris cares about it--there's certainly no evidence that he does. You made that issue up. That says much more about you than it does about Chris.
Finally, we get to the central issue: a commanding officer endorses spirituality, and you don't like it.
Tough.
Grow up and let the troops get on with their jobs. If the top dog decides that the army will fight better if they pray before battle, that's his call. He can't order them to attend service, but he had better make sure that chaplains are available. That's not easy, as your vast military experience will tell you
Mac

Mac of MD 12:09AM August 22, 2008

"No one is telling you that you have to accept homosexuality. They're telling you that you can't discriminate against it regardless of whether you personally like it or hate it."
Except...you go to court to force us to accept gay marriage. But I thought we weren't in the business of telling people what is or isn't okay to accept.
"No one is telling you that you have to become green. Go ahead and pollute, but be prepared to weather the social scorn (from both the left and the right) when you do."
Except...when we say we are willing to consider the environmental impact of drilling, but just allow us to drill, you scoff and prevent us from doing so. But I thought we weren't in the business of scorning people because we don't happen to agree with their position on pollution.
"No one has EVER denied your right to refrain from having an abortion. They're just telling you that you don't have the right to keep someone else from doing it."
Except...when people who don't believe in abortion and don't want to practice are publicly ridiculed AND scorned for practicing their conscience. But I thought we weren't in the business of telling people what to do.
"I realize your inherent egotistical view of the world seems to facilitate your whining and feelings of persecution, but no one has ever infringed on your right to do as you please as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others to do as THEY please. Your "woe is me" attitude is both repugnant and unpatriotic."
This is hogwash. I have a different viewpoint than you do on issues, yet I'm the one who is egotistical? You're the one who came in here lambasting me for my views, but I'm the one that is egotistical. I never said that I was being persecuted. I can care less if you're gay, green and and a babykiller. That's your right. But since Roe v. Wade, you guys on the left have been forcing your view on everyone through the court system, and then you try to sit there and say that somewhere in the Constitution, these rights are guaranteed, when they are not. And how surprising that someone on the left will say I'm unpatriotic because I don't support abortion, forced gay marriage through the courts and envirocrazy environmental policies. If that makes unpatriotic, then I'm proud to be unpatriotic.
A general endorsing a book in no way forces religion on anyone. And in case you forgot, Christianity is already widespread in the military, otherwise why in the hell do people go to OCS to become chaplains? However, Christianity is not forced upon anyone who serves. If individual soldiers do it, that is a different story. However, it is not public policy for people who serve to become Christians, and you know it.
"YOU may want everyone in the US to be racially pure, white holy people but that dream is also being carried by the Taliban, al Qaida and most religious terrorist organizations. The difference is one of degree, not morality."
How ignorant of you to post a stupid statement when you don't even know what ethnicity I am. But how white guiltish or liberal guiltish of you to assume that only whites would hold these views. For the record, I'm black.
"How hypocritical is it when their very commanding general indicates to his subordinates that they should even HAVE a spiritual need when it's the right of every American to deny the existence of their own spirituality?"
Goes to show you didn't even read the article.
The rest of your post is liberal hogwash. For the record, I don't even practice a religion, but unlike atheists, agnostics, secularists and humanists, I see a need for religion in society. I believe in God, but I also don't get upset when atheists start mouthing off that religion is evil. But I shouldn't be surprised that someone like you would make assumptions about people. After all, you make the assumption that Christians are always trying to impose their beliefs upon, but the way I see it, the Christians are fighting to prevent having YOUR views pressed upon them.

Chris of AZ 10:43PM August 21, 2008

Oh, Chris, here's a little clue from a moderate regarding your thin skin:
No one is telling you that you have to accept homosexuality. They're telling you that you can't discriminate against it regardless of whether you personally like it or hate it.
No one is telling you that you have to become green. Go ahead and pollute, but be prepared to weather the social scorn (from both the left and the right) when you do.
No one has EVER denied your right to refrain from having an abortion. They're just telling you that you don't have the right to keep someone else from doing it.
I realize your inherent egotistical view of the world seems to facilitate your whining and feelings of persecution, but no one has ever infringed on your right to do as you please as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others to do as THEY please. Your "woe is me" attitude is both repugnant and unpatriotic.
As for the belief in the 'separation of church and state', it is neither stupid nor unfounded. It's a long-standing constitutional guarantee that allows you to practice your religion free from government endorsement or imposition of another upon you. The military is a government organization and while it caters to every religion in some way, it is unfortunately blatantly preferential toward Christians - which is both demoralizing to non-Christians (which, since you've obviously never served, is a very bad thing for a combat unit and for the military in general) and unconstitutional as well.
YOU may want everyone in the US to be racially pure, white holy people but that dream is also being carried by the Taliban, al Qaida and most religious terrorist organizations. The difference is one of degree, not morality.
You are free to practice your faith of choice (or lack thereof) because the men and women of our armed services are defending that right. How hypocritical is it when their very commanding general indicates to his subordinates that they should even HAVE a spiritual need when it's the right of every American to deny the existence of their own spirituality? Is a military leader allowed to be spiritual? Of course. Are they allowed to express their spirituality outside of the church? Of course not. A military leader leads militarily and NOT spiritually, except to ensure that all faiths practiced by our armed service men and women are treated with equal regard and respect.
Exactly how is that unfair?
If Petraeus was retired or out of the military, this would be a non-issue. But he isn't, and it is. To come out endorsing spirituality in general gives the false and demoralizing impression that in order to be a good soldier (sailor, airman, Marine) one MUST be spiritual as well. That's patently untrue. One must merely respect that some people are, and others aren't and see to it that whatever their needs may be, they are tended to. THAT is the ONLY role a military commander may take.
Practice your faith as you wish. As long as you don't impose on the rights of your fellow Americans, that's your right. But stop whining about how the liberals are out trying to take your rights away. You sound like the kid who cried about the police making him stop throwing stones through other people's windows. My advice to Christians: Tend to your own soul and let others tend to theirs, because in the end, what matters is that yours will be the one standing before God explaining your life. And something tells me self-righteous bigotry is not going to look too good to the Almighty.

Fatesrider of CA 6:45PM August 21, 2008

So, recommending that soldier's carry a book in their bag is the same as coming up to them to talk about Jesus. You liberals knows no bounds. You will harp on us about becoming green, or accepting homosexuality, or being receptive to abortion, but suggest a soldier carry a book for spiritual guidance you get up in a tizzy. You guys are starting to this stupid and unfounded belief of "Separation of Church and State" to new levels.

Chris of AZ 5:08PM August 21, 2008

Another example of truly tasteless writing by Bonnie Erbe.
And I'm a liberal, no less. But making fun of soldiers' faith and need for faith in the forsaken places we send them?
Worse than shameful.

of 4:56PM August 21, 2008