A faith-based book for military personnel has given opponents of Gen. David Petraeus more fuel for protests though the author claims to have been the one who made the mistake.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Maya Alleruzzo)U.S.Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, speaks to local leaders as he visits a marketplace in Muqdadiyah, about 90 kilometers (60 miles) north of Baghdad in Iraq's volatile Diyala province on Saturday, July 26, 2008.
"In the process of securing … comments for recommending the book I believe there was a basic misunderstanding on my part that the comments were publishable," Army Chaplain (Lt. Col.) William McCoy wrote in an Aug. 19 email to Military.com, the nation’s largest military and veteran membership organization.
The author was referring to endorsements for his book, Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel, by Petraeus and Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, who said the book “should be in every rucksack for those times when soldiers need spiritual energy" and called it “inspirational,” respectively.
The endorsements, McCoy explained, “were intended for me personally rather than for the general public."
Despite the author's claims, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog group, is calling for an investigation.
"General Petraeus has, by his own hand, become a quintessential poster child of this fundamentalist Christian religious predation, via his unadulterated and shocking public endorsement of a book touting both Christian supremacy and exceptionalism," MRFF founder Michael Weinstein expressed in a statement to Military.com.
"MRFF is now officially putting both Army chaplain Lt. Col. Bill McCoy and General Petraeus on notice not to destroy any of the written or electronic records of their communications about this [issue]," added the former Air Force judge advocate general and White House counsel during the Reagan administration.
According to the MRFF, Petraeus’s endorsement of the book was brought to its attention when Weinstein noticed a half-page ad for the 2008 edition of the 3-year-old book in the Air Force Times. Though Weinstein was initially reading the Aug. 11 issue of the publication to probe an interview with Air Force Chief of Chaplains Maj. Gen. Cecil Richardson, the title of McCoy’s book caught his eye and prompted him to find out what the book was about.
“[A]nd this is what we found – a pro-Christian, anti-atheist book heartily endorsed by none other than Gen. David Petraeus, a slap in the face from the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq to the 21 percent of the men and women fighting there who define themselves as atheists or having no religious preference,” wrote Chris Rodda, a freelance writer and researcher for the MRFF, in a recent article.
Though Rodda said she “actually found much of the book to be pretty good” and that it promotes “a brand of Christianity that I wish we saw more of in both the military and civilian spheres,” she found Petraeus’ endorsement to be improper.
“And, of course, the fact that this book not only promotes a specific religion, but denigrates those service members who choose to have no religion, makes Petraeus' endorsement all the more exceptionable,” she added.
Petraeus spokesman Col. Steven Boylan, however, said the general was likely unaware of the public use of his endorsement as he has been in Iraq since the beginning of February 2007 – before the second publication of the 2005 book. Petraeus's endorsement has been on the book since its 2007 publication, while Hertling's plug first appeared on the original 2005 edition.
“[U]nless someone notes it, we would not be aware of it," Boylan wrote in an Aug. 19 email to Military.com. "We don't get the stateside papers in Baghdad and I doubt very much that Gen. Petraeus goes to Amazon.com much, if at all."
But even if Petraeus was aware of the publication of his endorsement, the Rev. Billy Baugham, a retired Army chaplain and executive director of the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers (ICECE), says Petraeus has a right to plug the book.
Past generals, such as George C. Marshall and George Patton, made the case for religion in the ranks, he argued.
"So the ICECE would support what General Petraeus has done," Baugham told Military.com.
On his blog, McCoy said the blurb will be removed from future editions of the book, which is listed as a Best Seller in its category by the Army and Air Force Exchange System.
McCoy was recently awarded a “Golden Pen Award” for the book at the US Army’s Command and General Staff College for a major publication by a faculty member.
RSS
I am all for it, and I agree that soldiers are more worried about other things, than something someone said in a book they are not OBLIGATED to read. And what if he is a christian??? That rocks!!!... as long as he shows fairness, that should not be an issue. Hoah!
"If I be a fool let me be a fool for Christ!" You go, General!!! Fight the good fight.. on the battle field and in the battle field of hearts and minds!!!
Remember the movie Independance Day. When the president asks what the aliens want from us, the reply is "DIE."
These kind of atheists wont be happy until we agree with them by ceasing to speak of Christ and agree that George Washington was an atheist, too. I cannot imagine what George Patton might have said about this whinning sue happy attorney. God bless em, even if they dont want it.
tamna, your truly welcome and I agree with your idea of the "offensive things" the book may have said, be blessed as you serve Him, believer
Hi Believer!
You wrote:
tamna, first off thank you for your service..."
Thank you, sir.
"...and secondly I'm sure Gen. Petraeus and Lt. Col. McCoy are shaking in their boots over this threat by the MRFF."
Hahaha. So true, so true.....
"But I would still like them to explain what this book has to say that is so offensive to atheists, agnostics, and those of no religious preference."
I can't imagine. Maybe it has inflammatory, hurtful, and intolerant words such as "God, prayer, forgiveness, love, peace, joy, comfort, etc., etc."
Take care.
PAX
tamna, first off thank you for your service and secondly I'm sure Gen. Petraeus and Lt. Col. McCoy are shaking in their boots over this threat by the MRFF. But I would still like them to explain what this book has to say that is so offensive to atheists, agnostics, and those of no religious preference.
Ooops, in my haste I didn't spell "veteran" correctly in my last post. Oh well...
dongard: FYI it's "rucksack" not "knapsack." I have always found it helpful to know the basic terminology of a subject before commenting on it.
philo777: General Petraeus has a very difficult job and has responsibilities that you and I cannot even dream of. Until you feel YOU could do the same job better, and are willing to lay it all on the line, I suggest you refrain from using the NY Times/politically inspired insult "Betrayus" when referring to General Petraeus.
Believer is correct. Based on over 10 years as a military officer and combat verteran I can almost guarantee that 99.999% of soldiers don't give a hoot. The small endorsement by a general, any general, has no bearing on whether a soldier voluntarily chooses to read or not read a book. The book, with the general's small endorsement, IS NOT required reading, it IS NOT taught in military schools, and reading or not reading the book has NO bearing on whether a soldier gets promoted. The people who are all in a tizzy about this give the General too much credit and our brave service members not enough credit.
The ex-Air Force LAWYER, who is running around like the sky is falling, makes his living by finding controversies and making a stink where there is none. This guy needs to get a life - or at least wake up and smell the cordite. If the book on Christianity was required reading I think he might have a cause for concern, but as it is, nope. Just another lawyer trying to raise a fuss. As evidence I read this:
"MRFF is now officially putting both Army chaplain Lt. Col. Bill McCoy and General Petraeus on notice not to destroy any of the written or electronic records of their communications about this [issue],"
What the heck is this guy talking about? The "Foundation" has no legal authority to put anyone "on notice" for anything. Talk about delusions of grandeur! Sounds like the preparation for a lawsuit are already in the works. Yet another payday for the lawyers. Or, at least something to be used to get "donations" from other like minded individuals. Sheesh.
I had the honor to receive from a soldier at Fort Drum a bandana that is given to every soldier who is deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. On it is written Psalm 91 and they are given a small folded American flag as well which I also received as both a going away and thank you gift. Fortunately, at this point and time no one from the MRFF or ACLU has complained about this practice. But what's interesting is the soldier told me that some people cherish it and others use it to clean their M-16, but he didn't say that anybody to include atheists, agnostics, or no religious preference soldiers complain about it. And I did recheck the article and it says absolutely no where in the article that the books have been handed out.
As a former military person I saw a lot more military members get ragged on for carrying Bibles, going to church, and praying. I never once saw anybody get ragged on for not doing those things. I have had supervisors, not in the military, recommend and even require certain books to be read that I didn't agree with. When I went to Boston University some of the books I was required to read in a graduate program I did not agree with. I simply used the flush method, once I passed the exam I simply flushed it from my mind. And most military I knew both while in the service and as a Pastor near Fort Drum would have no problem simply stuffing this book and any other book they didn't want to read in a foot locker or even in the trash unless they were given a direct order to read it. Plus I'll check again but I don't believe this book is given to every soldier, that was just what the General thought should be considered.
Did you read the article, Believer? I don't think the problem was with the book itself, it has been around three years with no problems. The problem was with the endorsement of Betrayus.
Think about how you would feel if you were one of the 20% of soldiers referred to in the article who express no religious preference? Would not the endorsement of the General make you feel just a tad alienated? Be honest, now. Then put yourself in the shoes of the Danbury Baptists, scared to death that the Congregationalists in Hartford were going to declare their religion the "state" religion of Connecticut.
You see, the first amendment is a good thing, it protects all of us, and should be supported by all Americans, regardless of religious persuasion.
believer
what planet are you on. what if your boss says this book on a particular religion "should be in every office drawer for those times when my employees need spiritual energy."
what if that book was the koran or the druid book of trees. would you be so supportive.
keep your gods out of my knapsack.
I would love to know how the book shows disrespect to those who are not Christians. Heaven forbid we should want to give our military men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way on a daily 24/7 basis a book that might give them some encouragement and strength when times get tough. Every person who goes in the military is given a New Testament by the Gideons and they are free to do with it as they wish. Many trash them while many more tend to just hold on to them and some even take time to read them. And yet I have read and heard story after story of military men and women who during difficult times read passages from these New Testaments that gave them just what they needed to get them through a tough situation. I also heard stories how these New Testaments literally saved soldiers lives as the New Testament took the bullet that was meant for them.