A Tale of Two Soldiers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,911
Location
Alma Illinois
Washington Times
October 4, 2003
Pg. 14

A Tale Of Two Soldiers

By Michelle Malkin

There's something terribly wrong when an American soldier overseas can't receive Scriptures in the mail, but a Muslim chaplain can preach freely among al Qaeda and Taliban enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay.

This is a story of two soldiers, one Christian, one Muslim. It's a cautionary tale that suggests how religious double standards and politically driven hypersensitivity threaten not only our troops, but us all.

Six months ago, Jack Moody tried to send his son, Daniel, a care package containing a Bible study and other Christian religious materials. Daniel is a 21-year-old Army National Guardsman serving in the Middle East. He had written home requesting spiritual support while he risked his life abroad. The literature his dad packed included Christian comic books. But when Daniel's dad approached the Post Office in the family's hometown of Lenoir, N.C., he was told he would not be allowed to send the items.

According to U.S.Postal Service Bulletin 22097, section E2, Mr. Moody was forbidden from sending "any matter containing religious materials contrary to Islamic faith or depicting nude or seminude persons, pornographic or sexual items, or nonauthorized political materials." The postal clerk informed Mr. Moody the package's Christian contents might be considered offensive to some Muslims overseas. The policy was initiated during the first Gulf war.

"My son is in the military, and he's overseas fighting to free this country from tyranny, and to protect our rights and our freedoms. And here our government has a rule on the books that has limited his freedom. I just couldn't believe it," Mr. Moody told the Voice of America news service.

Even more unbelievable was the apathetic reaction of Mr. Moody's elected representatives. According to John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, a staunch defender of religious liberty, Sen. Elizabeth Dole's staff brushed off Mr. Moody. So did Dan Gurley, Republican Rep. Cass Ballenger's chief of staff. According to Mr. Moody, Mr. Ballenger refused to get involved, insisting the matter should be left to the courts.

And there's where Mr. Moody's case remains today. The case is included in the devastating new book "Persecution," best-selling author David Limbaugh's searing indictment of anti-Christian intolerance . The Rutherford Institute filed suit against the U.S. Postmaster General in defense of Mr. Moody's rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection under the law. The group's motion for summary judgment is pending.

Mr. Whitehead explains: "The First Amendment prohibits our government from establishing a religion by favoring one over another. By stating that no material can be mailed if it is contrary to the Islamic religion, the U.S. Post Office has clearly shown deference to Islam above all other religions — and this definitely violates our Constitution."

Contrast Daniel Moody's treatment with that of Capt. James Yee. The Muslim convert, who studied in terror-sponsoring Syria and attended an Islamic cultural center run by the terror-friendly Saudi government, was given free rein by the U.S. Army to administer to the souls of al Qaeda and Taliban enemies at Guantanamo Bay.

Capt. Yee brought the detainees prayer beads and religious books, facilitated prayer services, and assisted them with Muslim food preparation. And he received lavish, fawning profiles in the "diversity-" and "tolerance-" obsessed mainstream press.

Now he has been charged with sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage and failure to obey a general order. Treason charges may be added.

Capt. Yee exploited our bent-over-backward solicitude toward Muslims in the military by allegedly using his access to smuggle out diagrams of the detainees' cells and lists of the names of the detainees and their interrogators. More than half of the armed forces' Muslim chaplains were trained by a terror-linked, Saudi-subsidized institute while military leaders blindly sang the praises of multiculturalism.

Islamist Fifth Columnists are benefiting from the very guarantees of religious freedom being denied to devout Christian soldiers such as Daniel Moody who risk their lives for the War on Terror overseas. This dangerous deference to radical Islam — rooted in a cowardly fear of offending — is not only a threat to our soldiers' constitutionally protected rights, but to our national security.

Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of "Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores" (Regnery).
 
So in our quest to be pc the poor kid cant have a bible to read while he fights overseas because it might offend the enemy, what??
 
C'mon, this makes perfect sense! In WWII, did we allow Jewish soldiers to display symbols of their religion that might offend Germans? Did we let soldiers take copies of things like the Constitution that might offend our friends the Communists? Remember, we must tolerate ALL religions (except Christianity) , just as we must not limit people based on their race (except whites) .
 
I don't know about this. When I was over there we had plenty of chances to attend Protestant and Catholic (as well as many others) religious services and also obtain Bibles and Korans or whatever religious texts we desired.
 
I disagree with the army's policy, but I can see where it came from. Christianity is the dominant faith in the US. It hits me on the head every time I plan my family reunion around christmas instead of lunar new year.

Could it be the spirit of the policy is for the dominant religion to not step on the minor religion. Remember, you only need to speak softly from a position of power.

Having said that, I see a clear case of blanket policy squashing folks in unintended consequences. I support changing that policy. I also support introducing non-muslem faith on the heel of the occupation. But then again, I also support paid time off for holy days in the better known religions.:neener:
 
Why is it that we are expected to be cognizant of the customs and feelings of the peoples of other countries but they give not a whit about us or ours? A case in point:

We are told not to eat left handed in Arabic countries; not to show our teeth in China; not to show the bottom of our foot in Islamic countries. We might cause the indiginous peoples discomfort we are told.

One night, I am at a restaurant with my wife. Across from us is this very attractive young woman of obvious foreign extraction. The problem is that she is chewing her food with her mouth wide open. There it was for all to see, this masticated mess rolling around her lovely cuspids.

Why is it that the customs and state departments of her country don't tell people who will be visiting America to not do these things that offend us? Why don't they have a pamphlet of do's and don't's that says "While you are visiting America, chew your food with your mouth closed as it is considered impolite by American etiquette standards to chew your food with your mouth open; and this will offend the locals."?

I'm tired of the United States being the only kid on the block that is expected to have good manners.
 
Last edited:
if it makes you feel any better, jim...

I offer you two examples of foreign countries that make a list of proscribed actions for their tourists coming to the States.

1. The travel agency gave everyone in my family a handbook before we were given our airline tickets to LAX. This was 20 years ago. I vividly recall these rules in the handbook: (a) do not pick your teeth at your dinner table. (b) do not scratch your itch in public. (c) stand politely during the national anthem of another country. (d) stand in lines. (e) keep distance from people...and (f) only whisper in a restaurant. The book also gave instructions on proper utensil use.

2. The folks in China were specifically told to (a) wear a suit. (b) no spitting. (c) no tooth picking after meals. (d) no littering.

I know there's got to be much more in China's rule book, but those are the ones my Chinese friends told me.

So Jim, these two counter examples falsify your general, blanket comment that only we (US) get these policies. I have relatives that claim all Americans (that includes me) are stuck up and self-centered. I don't like that blanket statement either, but at least one shred of evidence supports it in part: We on this board are complaining that foreigners aren't bothering to accomodate us in our country. (me me me) :evil:
 
I stand corrected.

As to accomodation, we attempt to "accomodate" them in their country; the least they can do is make an attempt at reciprocation.
 
It seems to me that one of the central points in this story is the question: Is the War on Terror a religious war?

While Saddam and OBL certainly aren't mullas, they are/were Isalmists. They have a religious basis for their hatred of America and the West. Just because we're overly careful of our secularism, and can't imagine ever going to fight a "Holy War", doesn't mean that our enemies abide by our set of rules. The Islamists have declared their jihad...We're in a religious war whether we like it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top